2/15/2011 @ 9:41AM38,584 views

Get Football Out Of Our Universities

(In which I take on the football-industrial complex, and get myself in trouble) The Super Bowl is over, finally. The college football* season is over too. Now we can be spared the breathless, hyperbolic stories about football for a few months, at least until next season. The culture of football in American universities is completely out of control. It is undermining our education system and hurting our competitiveness in technology, science, and engineering. If we keep it up, the U.S. will eventually be little more than the big, dumb jock on the world stage—good for entertainment on the weekend, but not taken seriously otherwise.

Too harsh? I don’t think so. I think we need to eliminate football entirely from our universities if we want to maintain our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader.

Why do we need to get football out of our universities? I’ve watched over the years as football has taken an ever-more prominent role in our high schools and colleges, as football coaches have been paid ever-higher salaries, and as football staffs and stadiums have been super-sized. All of this effort goes to the care and feeding of a very small number of (exclusively) male students, most of whom get a poor education and almost none of whom succeed as professional players. Our universities are providing a free training ground for the super-wealthy owners of professional football teams, while getting little in return.

This has got to stop. The core mission of our universities is to educate our students, not to entertain them with big-time sports events. Our political leaders, and all too often our university presidents, seem to have lost sight of this fact.

So I was very pleasantly surprised when President Obama, in his State of the Union speech on January 25, put in a plea for science over football:

“We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.”

Wow, not bad! Of course, as a politician he has to support football, so he argues only that the science fair deserves equal footing with football. (Even that is pretty radical for a politician.) I’ll go a big step further: the winner of the science fair deserves far more praise and celebration than any winner of any football game. If football disappeared, we could get our entertainment from another sport, as we do every year after the football season ends. But if we stop producing scientists, other countries will make the discoveries that solve the technological, medical, and engineering problems of the future, and that form the basis for great civilizations.

Now that I’ve gotten myself in trouble with football fans (and there are many of them), let me get myself in even more trouble, with an example from my own university.

At the University of Maryland last year, the football coach fell out of favor with the athletic director, who wanted to replace him. (This despite the fact that the coach was very successful, with an overall winning record.) The problem was, he had one more year to go in his contract, and the university would have to pay him a cool $2 million if they fired him. U. Maryland doesn’t exactly have money to burn: for three years running, it has imposed furloughs on all employees and prohibited all raises, including cost-of-living increases. So you’d think that blowing $2 million to pay a coach to sit on the sidelines, and paying who-knows-how-much to hire a new coach, would be out of the question.

What a bad move. That $2 million should have been spent on, well, how about educating the students? (And don’t get me started on football coaches’ salaries – they often make 3-5 times more than their own presidents.)

Do we want our universities to be known for their football teams? Or do we want them to be known as educational powerhouses? Apparently, the U. Maryland administration is more interested in building a better football team. Not surprisingly, many of the professors disagree. I can only hope that the students would side with the professors, but I honestly don’t know.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

you do realize that in american society they have a choice of what they want to donate to? also alabama is a special case. to get into alabama you only need a 2.4 or 2.5 gpa to get into without sports. you really think that getting rid of football is going to improve their admission process? football is what keeps lots of universities running. the revenue that they get from football goes into other programs such as your science. without football that revenue stream is gone. so i guess you want universities to have money problems? just wondering. if anything why dont we get rid of other sports that are wasting students time. like baseball

Excuse me for a second, are you really saying that kicking a ball into a soccer net is more intelligent than throwing one threw a system of defense to an open receiver? Ignorant opinion based article. As for health and safety, soccer FANS aren’t even safe. I have nothing against soccer, mind you, I’ve just used that sport here. As MANY U’s receive MILLIONS from their football programs and use some of that in other areas, which areas do you think we should shut down after the football revenue is gone? I know, we’ll take out the Math Dept. Sound good?

I would have thought an article on a forbes website would have been a touch more well thought out and argued, but alas! So (in my best Samuel L. Jackson voice) “Allow me to reort!”

You make several vague claims here, providing no statisitcs or facts to back them up and often rely on suggestion to get your point across. Allow me to address your “concerns” on a point by point basis.

A) You start off by complaining that universities “all of this effort goes to the care and feeding of a very small number of (exclusively) male students, most of whom get a poor education…”

Number One, what effort do the universities really put into it? The athletic departments handle most of the day to day opertions of football. The professors and deans do almost zero work (beyond a football players capacity as a student) with the team. Therefore, what effort is wasted? The effort of a department (athletic) that may not even exist without the football team? A grossly misleading statement on your part, to say the least.

Secondly, you claim most of the football team gets a poor education. You may be interested to now that the University of Alabama had a 67% graduation rate the spring after winning a national title in football. The average graduation rate for the US hovers around 55%. These national title winning players graduated at a greater rate than the average student.

B)You make the claim that, “if we stop producing scientists, other countries will make the discoveries that solve the technological, medical, and engineering problems of the future, and that form the basis for great civilizations.” I realize this was in a sub-point concerning the need to give science fair winners more accolades than football players, but in an article enititled “Get Football Out of Our Universities” that line has the effect of suggesting to the reader that you can’t have a top football team and produce great scientists. Of course, Auburn, who won the nationa championship this year and is one of the top engineering schools in the country, and Stanford, who won the orange bowl while also maintaining its lofty academic perch, would beg to differ with such a suggestion.

C) You point out that Maryland “blew” 2 million dollars on firing their football coach. You then suggest that said money should have been used for, “educating students.” You are either grossly misinformed about hos college football coaches are paid, or grossly (and intentionally) misleading- I for one would like to know which. Only a fraction of football coachess salaries are paid by the university. The vast majority is paid by private boosters and contracts for things like speaking engagements and endorsement deals (the University of Alabama pays only a two or three hundred thousand of Saban’s 4 million dollar deal). These are boosters who give money SPECIFICALLY FOR football. It does NOT take away resources from other students.

D) You point out (quite correctly) that football makes a profit. Then very ignorantly state “Universities could make a profit running a casino too- should they do that?” The profit that comes from football cannot be measured strictly by dollars the program brings in.

First, the dollrs measured in athletic department budgets does not include the amount of advertising a university gets from football. Football has year-round access to the one of the most watched networks in America, ESPN (which accounts for half of the revenue brought in by Disney). This advertising potential is very apparent both historically and in the present. For example, when George Denny took over as president of the University of Alabama in 1912, there were only 652 students. Denny used Alabama’s triumphs in the Rose Bowl to help grow the University to over 5,000 when he retired in 1936. a 1994 poll taken at Alabama (and broadcast during the Georgia game) showed the football team was a major contributing factor in 74% of the students decision to attend the university.

Second, alumni donations at most major football powers increase during years when the football team does well. Why? Quite simply, there is an emotional attachment to sports teams that represent your school that simply aren’t there with strictly money-making advertisements. As Paul “Bear” Bryant (Alabama coach AND graduate) noted in a debate on this very subject, “its kind of hard to rally around a math class.” Natural human nature leads us to rally around popular athletic events (see the ancient Greeks).

E)You claim you wish students to participate in sports, but sporting events are very expensive affairs. Football programs across the country allow these events to take place becuase of revenue provided by the football team. Without the funding provided by the football team, these other sports in which students participate might do the very thing you (incorrectly!) worried that the football team was doing, namely take funding away from education.

F) You mention the Ivy League, but don’t mention how they relate to your argument. Are they great universities BECAUSE they don’t have football programs? If that is the argument you are making, it is a poor one at best. After all, if you look at universities such as Texas and Florida, you will see their rankings as universities rose even as their football teams tiumphed on the gridiron. If you are making the point that football teams are not needed to be great universities, you are ignoring the built in advantages that the Ivy Leagues have over most state universities, advantages such as: 1) being older, hence having a great head start over more recently founded state universities in terms of building a reputation and and hefty endowment. State universities have used football to attract a larger student population, hence gaining more present dollars in state funding and future dollars in alumni gifts. 2) Having a head start on reputation (thus not having to advertise to bring in the students it wants.

G) You say “The football-industrial complex has too much power over our universities.” By conflating this term with “military-industrial complex” you are making a deliberate comparison to the term “military-industrial complex” popularized during the Vietnam War and associated (in many people’s minds) with the needless deaths of soldiers and Vietnamese civilians. Such a comparison is both irresponsible and insulting.

Finally, I was particularly amused with your footnote, which reads, “Note to my friends in other countries: by “football” I mean American football, that game with the peculiar oblong-shaped ball – not the wonderful game of soccer, which almost all other countries call ‘football.’” I find it particularly sad that use this article to run football out of universities, while calling soccer “wonderful.” You have more sympathy for a sport known for its oft-occuring riots (which frequently result in damage to property, injuries to fans, and sometimes even death) than you do for a beloved American sport. Your priorities are greatly misplaced and poorly thought out. I would expect better from a posting on Forbes website.

Bryantsbest: Too much to respond to, so I’ll have to make just a couple of comments. First, your claims about alumni giving after a good football season (or a bowl win) don’t prove anything – in fact, they support my argument. Universities put a lot of effort into getting alumni to donate. Rich alumni tend to donate, and if they give their money to football (for example, if they pay for the coach’s salary, as you point out they sometimes do), that is money that won’t go to other programs. And the funds put into football fundraising could easily be put into fundraising for other university programs – ones that affect education.

Second, you give several examples using the University of Alabama, as if that proves your point. While the Univ. of Alabama does have a good football team – and it clearly emphasizes football to a ridiculous extent – it is not a particularly good university. It is ranked 79th by US News (out of 191 that they ranked). Not terrible, but nothing to brag about. Who knows how much better they might be if they paid less attention to football?

“First, your claims about alumni giving after a good football season (or a bowl win) don’t prove anything – in fact, they support my argument.”

How? Oh, you ASSUME that money given by aumni to pay coaches salaries wil be donated elsewhere if the univeristy has no coaches. BAD assumption. Often, these alumni give money to acdemic AND coches salaries- money that would otherwise NOT be given AT ALL to the university if there were no rallying point like football. It provides a psychological point of pride which inspires unusually large donations. Football is one of the ways a university president uses to pry donors loose from their checks. Also, you forget about the alumni who attend universities BECAUSE they or their family has an attachment to football as part o the university. Without football, they may find themselves more likely to attend other universities, thus not even becoming alumni.

“Universities put a lot of effort into getting alumni to donate. Rich alumni tend to donate, and if they give their money to football (for example, if they pay for the coach’s salary, as you point out they sometimes do), that is money that won’t go to other programs. And the funds put into football fundraising could easily be put into fundraising for other university programs – ones that affect education.”

You really think that rich alumni who love football will really feel so great about thier school dropping football that it will inspire them to give the same amount of money to the math department? Hardly. It would cause drops in donations (believe it or not, university presidents generally know what a cost-benefit analysis is and have done the math). Oh and alumni don’t SOMETIMES pay the coaches salary- they nearly ALWAYS do. Also, as pointed out, football provides money to other athletic programs (which are expensive to run because they DON’T make money) so those programs do not syphon resources from the school. Oregon football helped support its track program. Know who the largest donator to Oregon is? Nike, co-founded by Oregon’s track coach.

“Second, you give several examples using the University of Alabama, as if that proves your point. While the Univ. of Alabama does have a good football team – and it clearly emphasizes football to a ridiculous extent – it is not a particularly good university. It is ranked 79th by US News (out of 191 that they ranked). Not terrible, but nothing to brag about. Who knows how much better they might be if they paid less attention to football?”

Several points to respond to this. First, you respond to the fact that I used Alabama (which I did merely because I know more specifics about them than I do about other schools) while ignoring several other examples I gave of schools who have marched up the rankings even as their football teams marched up the AP poll. How about Notre Dame (#19 on your list?) or Stanford (#5, beating out half the Ivy League?) or Southern Cal, at #23? Football seems to have hurt these schools academic pursuits ZERO. And Maryland, your alma mater? ranks #56, not bad, but nothing to call home about (ironically, Alabama’s law school ranked higher than Maryland’s).

You then say “who knows what Alabama would be without football?” Well, I provided evidence that football did, in fact, help build the University of Alabama (George Denny used Alabama’s Rose Bowl triumphs to advertise in Norhtern papers- where Alabama attracted many jewish students being denied entrance to the Ivy Leagues becuase those school’s had filled their quota of jewish students already.) You have in fact offered ZERO proof that “emphasis” on football syphons away either money or manpower resources that would otherwise go to the school, other than of course your unsubstantiated claim that rich alumni would donate their football money to schools- unprovable and a bit naive at best; in fact, even if they didn’t, the TV contracts and adertising football provides the school would STILL pay for the coaches salaries. Are you aware that ESPN accounts for HALF of the annual earnings of the Disney Corp.? You cannot buy the kind of advertising schools get when kids see these universities on ESPN.

And lets compare Apples to Apples. Why is Alabama ranked higher than University of Alabama Birmingham in your ratings? Why are Texas and Texas A&M ranked higher than Texas El-Paso? Florida and FSU higher than USF? Why are Clemson and South Carolina ranked higher than South Carolina State? Answer, football, which helps drive enrollment (and thus endowment).

Finally, I’ll leave you with a quote from Knute Rockne, who’s school (Notre Dame) ranked a “paltry” 23 on your rankings list: “A school without football is in danger of turning into a medieval study hall.”

Wow, for a man of “science” you don’t seem all that interested in honest debate.

No, Alabama does not have a great academic reputation. But how about Stanford? Or Northwestern? Or Michigan? Or Cal? Or Notre Dame? Or Vanderbilt? All very fine universities that all have football teams. And while Ivy League programs don’t have football scholarships, they do have football programs — programs that run at deficit, by the way. So I’m not sure why you’re using those schools as some example of how to do things “right.” Is your position that it’s OK to spend hundreds of thousands on football, but not millions?

Is it your position that JUST football is an unjustified expense? What about basketball? Or tennis? Besides, both of those sports benefit both men and women. I mean, should colleges spend money on anything except “improving education?” Is any extra-curricular spending justified? If so, which spending? And how much spending?

Whether you like college football or not, it has brought joy and a sense of community to colleges and communities and states and the nation for more than a century. It is about tradition and family and pride in your school. People love college football, and so they support college football, and hence college football is a big business.

The bottom line of your piece seems to be that, since you don’t like college football, nobody else should, either. There are so many holes in your “argument” that it’s hard to fathom that you actually believe in it; my guess is that you wrote this simply to get a reaction, and hey, mission accomplished.

College football is a business (you’d think a Forbes blogger would know this). Why doesn’t the author harp on CEOs of fledgling company who receive outlandish bonuses each year? Didn’t these same universities train those same executives? These same executives that receive bonuses far surpassing those of a handful of football coaches?

Take away football, you’re more than likely taking away opportunities for hundreds of other student-athletes whose name you’ll never see in the paper or on TV (including the author’s referenced sport of soccer). Many schools’ athletic departments would cease to exist without football. With that, many student-athletes who never otherwise would have had the opportunity to attend college would be contributing to unemployment numbers or ending up in jail.

Also conveniently overlooked is who actually pays much (if not all) of coaches’ salaries. Or who funds scholarships and construction of athletic facilities. It’s not the university. It is the alumni who have become successful in plenty of non-sports career fields. You conveniently overlook this when referencing the Ivy League athletic programs. Guess where the money to support athletics comes from?

Take away football, you also hurt the local economies of these schools. Name one non-athletic event on a college campus that draws 50, 60, 90, even 100,000 fans to a town, spending hard-earned money on hotels, restaurants and other local vendors. Studies have been done to show economic impact of athletics on a university and its parent town or city.

Studies have also shown that success of an athletics program can be directly related to a prospective student’s interest in attending that school. Good football teams equate to increased college applications. Prospective students who may have never stepped foot on any athletic field in their lives.

I’m sorry the author somehow feels disgruntled about football, but he needs to dig a little deeper next time he feels compelled to discredit its impact on academia.

“People love college football, and so they support college football, and hence college football is a big business.”

Great. Let’s move it off our campuses and make it a real business – a self-supporting one – which these boosters obviously think it can be. Football teams can pay universities a license for the use of their names and logos. Of course, if they are not really profitable, football teams might be afraid to have to make it on their own.

But the posters above miss my point: university education has nothing to do with football, and our universities are spending far, far too much time, money, and energy on this one sport.

“Great. Let’s move it off our campuses and make it a real business – a self-supporting one – which these boosters obviously think it can be.”

Think it can be? MOST Division 1 college football teams make money, and are thus, at the very least, self-supporting (its not even counting the advertising recieved on ESPN).

“Football teams can pay universities a license for the use of their names and logos. Of course, if they are not really profitable, football teams might be afraid to have to make it on their own.”

Are you serious? Look at the numbers, bub. The LEAST profitable team, Louisiana-Monroe, made 7.7 million dollaars, more than enough to pay for itself. Every team in the top 100 of revenue in 2007-08 season made at least 19 MILLION.

“But the posters above miss my point: university education has nothing to do with football, and our universities are spending far, far too much time, money, and energy on this one sport.”

Funny that I have asked you several times to answer WHO in the university spends time on football that takes away from their other duties, yet you refuse to answer the question. The Athletic Departments (financed by the FOOTBALL team, rather than the other sports you claim to want kids to play) runs the sports teams operations and is PAID FOR by the football teams. Do the professors do any extra work? No. The Deans? No. The President? Not really involved beyond MAYBE the hiring of the football coach (even then the Athletic Director generally makes the hire). So, I ask you again, what is funds or manpower is diverted from the university? Of course, earlier you hinted that boosters that donate to football would be so happy about a school dropping football that they would take that money and donate it to the Math or Science departments, but you have failed to show ANY CONCRETE PROOF (beyond your mere assurance) that football somehow drains resources.)

Let me ask you a question. When your student turns a paper into you, do accept his mere assursance that a hypothesis he presents is correct, or do you ask for proof of said hypothesis? If that is what YOU expect when recieving a paper, why are you so condescending towards your audience here that you expect us to accept YOUR hypothesis that football drains resources without offering a shred of proof?

Do you care to actually address any of the other arguments that myself and the other posters are making?

For instance, you basically claim that football is responsible for Alabama’s poor academic reputation. I pointed out that football is also played at Northwestern, Stanford, etc. Which, last time I checked, were pretty good schools.

And you also fail to address the larger issue–whether or not is OK for universities to spend ANY money on ANY extracurricular activity. Is basketball OK? Tennis? Arts clubs? I anxiously wait your response. My guess is that you’ll say these thing are fine; again, the bottom line seems to be that you just don’t like football, and therefore don’t like other people liking football.

Interesting post Steve, but can’t say I agree with any of it outside of big-time college football has nothing to do with education. It is big business at some schools, but there are more than 4,000 colleges and universities in this country and plenty of options where football is irrelevant. As for the football factories, they financially support (along with basketball) all of the other non-revenue generating sports at the school. Killing off the golden goose would severely impact teams in every other sport.

Steven: I couldn’t agree more. Football should be removed from colleges (especially public ones) entirely. College football should be replaced with some minor league which is a separate business and in which the players can get paid. Why keep up the farce of making them get a degree? Nobody made me play sports to get an engineering degree. I don’t think football provides as much money to the academic side as they claim, but it doesn’t even matter: the core mission of the state is to provide an education, not to run a professional sports network. It perverts and muddles the mission. I don’t even think it should be in high schools. Those who want to play can form private leagues outside of the school system.

Wow Kevin. I thought people who read a Forbes site would be better educated, but you have helped prove at least one thing: colleges and universities DO do a dang poor job of providing an overall education outside of one’s chosen major. Let us examine your comments, shall we?

“Why keep up the farce of making them get a degree?”

You may be interested to know that there are 120 Divison 1 football teams, who sign between 20 and 25 scholarship athletes every year, meaning somwhere between 2,400 and 3,000 high school kids will sign a scholarship to play division 1 football. The 2010 NFL draft took 257 players. A few players were tken as undrafted free agents. AT BEST, a Division 1 players has about a 10% chance of getting drafted to the NFL. I’m sure the other 90% (Many of whom got their degrees) would be happy to know they were wasting their time in college.

“Nobody made me play sports to get an engineering degree.”

So are you saying these athletes are forced to play football? No, they were simply offered free school if they did. Your statement is off point and borders on rediculous if you think either 1) These kids are forced to play football, or 2) Anyone would have wanted you to ply football for their University.

“I don’t think football provides as much money to the academic side as they claim,”

Now you are not only ignoring evidene that might compromse your position, you are accusing thousands of accountnts who work at 120 different schools who report their schools earnings of unethical and illegal conduct. All without a shred of proof to the contrary. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

“but it doesn’t even matter:”

I see you back away VERY quickly from your previous point that you don’t think university financial officers are telling the truth and doing their jobs properly. I hope such muddled thinking and shady accusations are not indicative of YOUR job performances as an engineer.

“the core mission of the state is to provide an education, not to run a professional sports network.”

Many things a university does is NOT part of the “core mission” of the University. Fraternites and soririties do not educate students. Neither do many social and civic clubs, yet THEY are part of a university. Likewise, the university often has musical events, play and other forms of entertainment for students that are not part of its “core mission of…[providing] and eduaction.” Should these things be run off campus as well? How about (the many) sports that you seem to have nothing against? How about club sports that have no scholarship athletes, but for which the university provides facilities and funding?

“It perverts and muddles the mission.”

Now you have fallen victim to the same faalacy of the original blogger; namely, you are asserting a position for which have ZERO proof and for which you offer none. I have repeatedly asked the original blogger to provide me with evidene that football somehow drains resources, either economic or manpower, from the university. I now ask you, please provide me with evidence on how football “perverts or muddles” the mission of a university. You seem to think your opinion on the matter should be enough. Opinions on anything are foolish unless one has taken the time to review the evidence and come to an informed conclusion.

“I don’t even think it should be in high schools. Those who want to play can form private leagues outside of the school system.”

This your most foolish statement in your entire post. There was an article some years back (and I will attempt to find it and post it here) that ran a story on what happened to one town when they (because of budget cuts) cancelled high school athletics. Juvenile crime rate shot up, and graduation rates went down. Why? Many kids (I knew several at the high school I attended) worked on their grades simply so they could compete in high school athletics. These were kids who recieved degrees that would have otherwise dropped out and engaged in criminal behavior. To cancel high school sports is to take away the only reason a great deal of high school age kids have for working to make grades. And you would take that away? Please, in the future, think your opinions out and offer proof for them before giving those opinions in the future. If I were to say “engineers screw up far too much of the time, therefore our engineering schools are a failure” you would think that oth the statement and the one who made are patently rediculous. Why? Because I gave ZERO proof or evidence of, 1) Engineers failing “too much of the time” 2) I did not properly define what “too much of the time was and 3) I offered no evidence that engineering schools were to blame. Please, think a little more critically in the futre.

(coming from someone who’s not a football fan) No your point was to write an uninformed, unintelligent, fact-less article. When confronted on the facts in the comments you ignored them, and you were proven wrong on *every* argument you made. Now your backtracking saying, “Oh, no the only point I made was saying football had nothing to do with education” however 90% of your article is devoted to 6th grade level arguments that have nothing to do with proving your point. Despite whatever your intentions are, this is a poorly writer article and I surprised Forbes allowed this garbage to be published.

Kurt, you and many others claim that football is profitable, often claiming it is extremably profitable (“the golden goose”, you wrote). I’m not sure what statistics support these claims, but the evidence says that college football programs lose money, except for a small minority of very successful ones. For example, the NCAA recently reported that only 17 out of 301 Division 1 programs made money: http://ctsportslaw.com/2008/05/22/ncaa-study-shows-that-most-athletic-programs-lose-money/. And another report said only 9% of athletic departments support themselves: http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/7239613?f=options.

So it appears that most football programs don’t make money. I think this is the underlying reason why they would be strongly opposed to my proposal that they be kicked out of universities and made into independent entities. They fear that they would be unable to support themselves without the massive subsidies – many of them unrecognized – that universities provide.

I don’t see that the facts support this oft-repeated claim that football supports itself and even subsidizes other sports. But either way, that’s no excuse for universities to be in the business of providing football entertainment – on the backs of unpaid athletes who get a sub-standard education because they are too busy playing football.

There are several issues I have with both your article and your last comment, but let me just focus on your comment for now.

First, you claim that only a small minority of football programs don’t make money, but to prove this you point to articles discussing athletic programs losing money. Surely I don’t have to tell you that football program≠athletic program.

If instead you had simply looked on the NCAA’s website, you’d see that FBS college football is one of the only sports that actually is profitable. http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/REV_EXP_2010.pdf On Page 36, it states that for the FBS subdivision—which is the highest subdivision, the one with million dollar coaches—the median net revenue in 2009 was $2.5 million. Basketball was the only other sport in the FBS subdivision which generated a median net revenue. Furthermore, 68 of the 120 FBS football programs generated more revenues (without any assistance from the university or fees on students) than expenses in 2009. Page 29. By comparison, there are 340 women’s basketball teams that compete in all of Division 1; only 2 generated more revenue than expenses in 2009. See Pages 28, 54, 80. These FBS athletic programs are in the red, but it isn’t because of football.

Second, you make the statement that these schools are providing most of their student-athletes with a “poor education.” This is stated without any substantiating evidence. Even assuming that it’s true, that they are receiving a “poor” education, the fact is that without college athletics some of these student-athletes wouldn’t be going to college at all, either because they could not afford it, would not care to go, or other reasons. So what’s better, a “poor” education, or no education at all?

As Steve Salzberg correctly states: “college football programs lose money, except for a small minority of very successful ones.” Few schools supporting big-time football programs make money even though they are government subsidized and exploit unpaid professional athletes. The money is being made by coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners, and bowl directors, for example, the nearly two dozen directors of the nonprofit bowls that earned more than $300,000 a year.

So is there any hope for collegiate athletics reform?

The current operating strategy on Capitol Hill appears to be to avoid doing anything that would provoke the NCAA by simply ignoring related problems and long-term impacts—letting the courts take the heat. That does not mean that there is no hope for collegiate athletics reform. On the contrary, as difficult as the journey may be, the reform movement is still quite alive—court cases are just one of multiple signs of hope for fixing collegiate athletics.

To be clear, no significant help is to be expected from members of Congress or the Department of Education beyond that already provided by U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who leveled some very critical remarks at big-time college sport at the 2010 NCAA National Convention, and Senator Charles Grassley who continues to be an abiding source of hope for reform … hope involving the IRS’s stepped-up scrutiny of colleges and other nonprofits.

In October 2006, Congressman William Thomas, chair of the House Committee on Ways & Means (HCW&M), pursued some of the Drake Group’s concerns and its recommendation to make the continuation of the not-for-profit status of the NCAA cartel contingent on the disclosure of data on the academic performance of big-time college athletes. Thomas asked NCAA President Myles Brand to justify the NCAA cartel’s not-for-profit status, and, after Charlie Rangel (Thomas’ successor as chair of the HCW&M) dropped the matter, Senator Grassley continued to question the justification for the NCAA’s tax-exempt status when he held the SFC chairmanship.

The stepped-up efforts by the IRS, prompted by Senator Grassley, have the potential to end government subsidization of professionalized and highly commercialized big-time college sports programs via unjustified tax breaks. These tax breaks have come to be viewed as entitlements by their recipients, namely the highly-compensated officials at the NCAA, conferences, and bowl-game organizations, as well as the wealthy donors to college and university athletic programs.

The federal antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, Electronic Arts, and others was strengthened with the announcement that basketball legend Oscar Robertson has added his name to the case, asserting that they licensed and profited from the use of his image without his consent. A final ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could dramatically reshape the commercial relationship between the NCAA and its athletes … athletes who are currently prohibited from receiving compensation tied to their performances. Many lawyers and legal scholars following the case say it could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still another sign of hope comes in the form of the recent publication of a recent definitive article on academic corruption in collegiate athletics in the Dartmouth Law Journal. The article should not only be of interest to Senator Grassley and his colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, but also of interest to officials at the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, as well as to IRS officials who have responsibility for the compliance of nonprofits to the requirements of their tax-exempt status. The lead sentence in abstract of this revelatory article reads: “Corruption in college athletics is longstanding, systemic, worsening, oft-debated, and threatens the institutional integrity of higher education.”

All of the above certainly compounds the NCAA’s legal problems. No doubt the NCAA aims to retain its tax-exempt status and maintain the status quo by resisting changes that would force it to realign big-time college sports with its stated mission of maintaining athletes as an integral part of the student body and retaining a clear line of demarcation between collegiate and professional sport.9, 10 The NCAA will also likely resist calls for transparency, accountability, and oversight that would expose its operations to ever more intense scrutiny by the media and, worse yet, the IRS.

Maintaining the status quo in the midst of unprecedented controversy and legal troubles is a difficult challenge—a job requiring not only strong executive leadership at the NCAA, but also consummate political skills and experience in dealing with similar situations. That’s why the NCAA cartel hired and highly compensates their new president, legal-battle-hardened Mark Emmer, to lead a staunch defense of the status quo as well as shroud their professionalized sports entertainment businesses with a patina of respectability.

Lest Steve Salzberg and other reform-minded academics get overly excited by the advent of signs of hope, they must be realistic. The new NCAA president has not only surrounded his office with competent tax and antitrust attorneys to defend the status quo, but has the resources—both financial and political—to wage long and costly court battles to stifle legislative reform initiatives and to exhaustively appeal court rulings. Given this circumstance, moving forward— while keeping reform alive and well—will require the utmost in patience and perseverance.

This is further to my previous comment and is directed toward die-hard supporters of highly commercialized and professionalized big-time collegiate athletics.

It is not surprising that skepticism has emerged around the book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa who conclude that students are not learning very much in college.

There should be no doubts about the author’s basic conclusion—it’s the reason why schools have resisted learning-outcome assessments and why the NCAA cartel is quick to seek refuge in the FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, when asked to answer questions relating to the education of college athletes. Who wants to reveal the fact that they are not doing a very good job at what they are supposed to be doing? Just imagine the blowback from tuition-paying parents, government funding agencies, and our nation’s taxpayers—not to mention the Internal Revenue Service

Also, it should not be surprising that the academic establishment would find faults of one kind or another with the study methodology so as to deflect attention away from the author’s disturbing conclusions. Perhaps doubters have a point when they claim that the Collegiate Learning Assessment measure used by the authors limits the merit of the study. However, the gloomy picture on education should not be surprising. Here’s why.

In his 2000 book, Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education, Murray Sperber argues that schools are substituting a party-like, “beer and circus” social environment for a meaningful education—an environment that serves to keep students happy, to marginalize faculty, and to maintain on ongoing flow of evermore tuition dollars. The New York Times Book Review read: “It is hard to read Sperber’s book without having a sinking feeling about the future of American culture. He has managed to document our national decline in painstaking detail.”

We can have the same sinking feeling after reading Academically Adrift wherein the authors provide data to back their observation: “Growing numbers of students are sent to college at increasingly higher costs, but for a large proportion of them the gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communications are exceedingly small or empirically nonexistent.” This observation certainly supports Sperber’s earlier condemnation of higher education.

One would expect to see an even larger proportion of no gains associated with cohorts of athletes from schools that effectively prioritize athletics over academics. Many of these athletes will graduate—credentialed by their schools for participating in diploma-mill-like, eligibility-oriented, general studies programs.

With the notable exception of STEMs majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) as well as law, medicine, and other majors subject to rigorous accreditation practices, students are not generally required to work hard to learn what they need to learn and how to learn it. Not requiring really hard work discourages class attendance by serious students, encourages laziness and the adoption of a beer-and-circus mentality.

At the recent Education Summit in Denver, Education Secretary Arne Duncan chastised teachers and their bosses in equal measure. Thousands of educators were told that the nation’s schools are in deep trouble, that bickering among teachers, politicians and administrators is sinking efforts to improve education, that one in four American students fail to complete high school, and that the U.S. is falling behind on college graduation rates.

We all need to wake up and face reality; higher education in America is declining relative to education in nations that prioritize academics over athletics. If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, the most important U.S. products in the future will not require proficiency in STEMS education since its best products will eventually be athletic sports entertainment venues and world-class athletic entertainers.

To better understand college sports finances, see the press release, “Knight Commission Calls for College Sports Reform, Recommends Public Transparency of Finances and New Financial Incentives,” at http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=583 . In a nutshell, this past June, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics issued a report that revealed huge disparities between spending on athletics and academics and called for financial reforms in college sports. The report, “Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future of College Sports,” can be accessed via a link provided at the referenced press release.

I have a B.A. from Maryland and an M.A. from Auburn. Both in Communication Studies. I can say first hand that at both schools, I had a rigorous course load.

I have a few general comments here. You are correlating football to not having enough funding for the math and sciences and therefore not producing enough scientists. I don’t think if we get rid of football, universities would produce a signifigant more amount of scientists. Football is a distraction, but so is Facebook, Halo, Black Ops etc. So is football causing us not to have enough scientists or is it distration from academics in general?

Also, my talent was in the liberal arts and I teach rhetoric/public speaking(I think Aristotle and the Sophists would argue the importance of this in our society). Your talent is in Computer Science, so your view will always be biased towards the sciences. Many of us don’t have the natural talent to become scientists or engineers, does that mean students who get degrees in something they are naturally good at should be faulted?

You credited Barack Obama’s quote about the science fair. Guess what, Barack is not a scientist, he has a political science degree and a law degree.

Maybe he should have said we should celebrate the winner of the science fair and the winner of the student who submitted the best english paper at the academic conference.

Football is an opportunity for all young males to get to college. Scholarships help those who can’t get into college through education. It is sad to realize the truth but reality is something we all must face. Poverty is real in this country and those who are denied an entry to colleges through education can find a way through rigous phyiscal activity

Mr. Stephen Salzburg brings up a great argument about university’s and their football teams. With great supporting facts, in how football clouds the main goal for students going to college after high school. From a seniors perspective my main goal is to create a better opportunity for a greater future and sports is not one of the benefactors that decides what college to go to.

Salzburg you bring up a lot of debates about major colleges. In witch their academic accomplishments have detoured over time. As you mentioned “The core mission of our universities is to educate our students, not to entertain them with big-time sports events. Our political leaders, and all too often our university presidents, seem to have lost sight of this fact” (Stephen Salzburg). The fact that universities are chosen based upon sports teams instead of the math department or science department.

Many people disagree with how much coaches are being paid over well qualified teachers. Salzburg states in his article. “The problem was he had one more year to go in his contract, and the university would have to pay him a cool $2 million if they fired him” (Stephen Salzburg). I would have to agree with most of the statements in this article. Especially in California are such schools as the University of California, there are a great deal of people that fallow the school only based upon their football team. I believe that sports are in spite of my argument good for the colleges. If some one likes specific college footballs team the chances of them attending the school is a lot higher then someone who doesn’t know much about the school.

Schools not only in the United States, but all over the world are focusing on education as seen in Salzburg’s article. “Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us. …. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.” (Stephen Salazar quotes President Obama). President Obama makes it clear to us how the rest of the world is starting to advance in technology and in their economy. In conclusion their must be a balance to the sports and schooling colleges provide for their students and their community. And in the balance we could prosper. But for now college sports still are part of the American way. But as an American citizen I look for the American dream. And we will do what ever we have to do to find it.

I believe Steven Salzberg is crazy. As a football player, it is easy to explain why. Football is a major reason why people chose to go to a college. I know a lot of my older siblings are very smart and got into a lot of schools. When it came down time to decide which school to go to, my brothers obviously chose a school where they could go to football games and enjoy themselves. College football is not only for the students, but also for fans all over the world. Little kids who grow up playing football look at these athletes as role models and aspire to be in their position one day. With out college football, there would be no more NFL, which is some people’s entire life. Football is “The Great American Sport” because it is not played anywhere else in the world. Salzberg claims that soccer is something better than football. Why, because more countries play it? His arguments are weak, at best. Football is very high revenue for the colleges and helps them with financial issues they may have. A recent pole showed the profit made off of teams who went to a bowl game. Texas made over 120 million dollars. That could help fund many things: such as Steven’s science. Lets face it, football as always and will always be a major role in colleges. Students look forward to Saturday nights in order to go out to the stadium and cheer on their school. No one loves more than to trash talk another school because their school’s football team beat theirs or vice-versa. I earned a scholarship to a very academically sophisticated school, which I would not have been admitted to with grades alone. I look at it like this; I have put so much time and effort into the game, that it is sort of a job to me. I do not get paid because I am only in high school and getting a scholarship is my reward for all my time and effort. What would be the point to play the sport if there was no fun in it? Receiving a call from a college coach and having him tell you that you have a scholarship offer is the most fun any athlete can ever dream of. If this anti-sport lover wants to abolish football, why not just cancel every sporting program? Face it; football is the most watched sport in college, next to basketball. It would be absolutely absurd to just can an entire sport from existence, when it has brought so much positive to our country. People come together to watch and participate in these games. Friendships that last a lifetime are erected from this game. I believe that Salzberg tried to play football when he was younger and was probably really bad at it so therefore thinks that no one should get a free education for football. He is just blatantly wrong.

i have no idea why you believe that in removing college football would help out the schools. foothill is americas sport, colleges make a lot of money with just football alone, with all of their sponsors. another thing, most students’s wouldn’t be able to afford to go to a good college if it wasn’t for football, their are so many scholorships given out each year to several students just because of their skills in football.

On February 21, I wrote, “In his 2000 book, Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education, Murray Sperber argues that schools are substituting a party-like, “beer and circus” social environment for a meaningful education—an environment that serves to keep students happy, to marginalize faculty, and to maintain on ongoing flow of evermore tuition dollars. The New York Times Book Review read: ‘It is hard to read Sperber’s book without having a sinking feeling about the future of American culture. He has managed to document our national decline in painstaking detail.’ We can have the same sinking feeling after reading Academically Adrift wherein the authors provide data to back their observation: “Growing numbers of students are sent to college at increasingly higher costs, but for a large proportion of them the gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communications are exceedingly small or empirically nonexistent.” This observation certainly supports Sperber’s earlier condemnation of higher education.”

To be sure, Murray Sperber is not the only academic to level criticism at the current state of higher education in America. Although authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roska do not reference Sperber in their book, Academically Adrift, they do quote Derek Bok on several occasions.

Bok, the 300th Anniversary University Professor and former President, Harvard University, used much kinder and gentler language in making many of the same points that were made by Sperber in Beer and Circus. See Bok’s 2003 book, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education and his 2006 book, Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More.

And there is a good reason why Robert Zemsky, a long-time leading voice for higher education, wrote his 2009 book, Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming Higher Education, a compelling account of what needs changing in America’s system of higher education.

I can see valid points in your argument and can almost agree with you on the whole make it a business plan. I have a couple of questions for you?

1. There is no way to know that a donor who donates to football instead of the university would give money to the university if there wasn’t a football team is there?

2. What say you then to a University such as Tennessee where the athletic department is self supporting and donates 12 million in revenue to the University for the past several years? That money wouldn’t necessarily be there and UT would be much more financial trouble than it is now.

3. What about other sports such as basketball? If no football what would you do with them?

4. Finally, if it did become a separate entity and paid university for licenses, would the athletes be college students like they are now? would they be paid?

5. BONUS: Do you see any benefit to universities that football could bring? Such as bringing students into school to get a degree that normally would consider community college instead if football wasn’t there?

I can see where the author is coming from and also think that he made some good points. It is ridiculous that the University of Maryland wasted $2 million dollars just to pay off a coach. That is a large sum of money and could have been used towards so many other things that would have been 100 times more productive. I hate to see money wasted like that when there are so many problems in our economy that need to be taken care of. However, i would not recommend taking football out of universities completely. I think a better solution would be to put more logical and smart people in charge of the spending that goes towards football teams and coaches.

One last question, if it was really that financially draining to a university to continue football (as i assume your implicating saying only 17 schools make a profit which is fact based on link you provided above) why would they not just drop it? Cal dropped baseball recently because of this.

Its a shame that football college coaches make so much because it can make a difference somewhere else. I believe that he is right saying that America will soon be watching other countries develop because we aren’t strictly focused on education. But I think it’s completely ridiculous to take college football out of America completely. High school students and even community college students work so hard to develop correct techniques for the game so that it can pave their way for an education. Cutting out the football program wouldn’t give them the opportunities they deserve. Besides, America loves college football. There is no way that would ever happen.

Dear Steven Salzberg I could not agree with you more. I think that football should be fully eliminated from colleges. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good football game, but it has become too much. Colleges are now getting a reputation for their football records, not their academic records. But isn’t that what college is about? Growing academically? Then why do we spend so much money on entertainment and glam in stead of academics and education? This is because the American people care more about being entertained than being educated. But which will benefit you in the long run? Colleges should spend money on classes, supplies, teachers and materials instead of stadiums, warm up jerseys and matching cleats.

I think I can take this argument as far as the reputation of only college, which has also changed. Twenty years ago people went to college to earn an education, to have a career, to have a future. Now, people go to college to party. When I ask people why they wanted to go to a certain college they reply with “Because it’s a party school.”, “They have great parties” or “They let you have alcohol in the dorms.” I reply “Is that the only reason why you want to go to college?” and almost always they will reply nonchalantly with “umm yeah.” It seems like no one cares about getting an education or planning their future. The only things that seem important are parties, sports and alcohol. College is a special place to learn and grow. It is now being corrupted by the wants of the American people and not the needs of the American people. We need more scientists and researchers not more four hundred pound, hotdog eating rednecks,

In my history class we were talking about the next world war. It is believed that the next world war is going to be all through technology- Different countries putting different viruses and bugs in each others internets and systems. China- being the main example- has the power to shut down our whole internet right at this moment. If the American people can not keep up with other countries technological advances, then we have no chance in this next possible war.

Football is to the American people like cigarettes are to a smoker. Americans started playing football to pass time and act like the norm-kind of like smoking. People join teams and go to games to meet other people; like smokers smoke to be apart of the “in crowd” and meet new people. Then it becomes too much and they like it so much that it starts to become their life. Both activities spend unnecessary money. Now let’s say we want to get the American people to quit football, like a smoker would quit smoking. You can’t just wean the American people off of football. There is not a special type of gum you can chew that has the feeling of football in it, or some patch that gives you the feeling that you are watching/playing football. In order for the American people to successfully quit football they need to do it cold turkey. No baby steps, no relapses. In the word of a football player, it’s all or nothing.

Cade Moore Mr. Price English 3 February 25, 2011 American Football In America, football is the most watched sport on television. Football not only entertains kids and adults but also gives kids dreams. Yes not a lot of people are drafted into the NFL but their experiences they had during the season and how they played is a big part of why football is so amazing and should be active in college and have a professional league. Every man after high school or college wishes they could go back in that same locker room and start the season all over again. If you would ask any person that played football in high school or in college if they would give anything to suit up one more time. I am guaranteed that they would say yes. That same feeling people have when that Friday night comes around never really goes away. You will have it when you find your first love, when you get married or even when you get your promotion. You’ll always have those great feelings but you won’t have them every week. Every man misses that feeling they have and wish they could have it back every week. You never know when your last play is going to be. The first play of the season could be your last. So even if you are a freshman, that doesn’t mean you have plenty of playing time left. You never know when you get hurt and before you know it can be out for the rest of your life. Coaches always tell you to leave your heart out on the field and the only way you know you played your best game is to look yourself in the mirror. Ask yourself if you played your heart out. The mirror never lies and I’m guaranteed that 80% of people would say they could’ve given more effort. Football isn’t just a sport. It’s a team game and life is a team game. Football isn’t just to try to be the best team and to win the championship game. It is a very emotional game. Yes that feeling of winning the championship game is absolutely amazing and is worth every single play. But everyone thinks the same thing. Winning the game is awesome but after that championship game is over and you are on the field celebrating among your fans and team. That last time you step off the field and walk on the track. Look up at the stands and just know that this game is the last game you will ever play. That last time those fans will be cheering for you. That is what is so emotional about this game. Even if you win and you are the champion, you are still going to be very emotional. The point I am trying to say is, football is kind of like life and if you take it away from people and cancel all the leagues in college. You will be crushing so many kids’ dreams. Those people who wish they could go back and play again know they can’t do that. So they watch the game and make their own game out of it and try to get that same feeling they used to have when they played. The game of football isn’t just a game. It brings people together to succeed and also helps them understand the way of life more.

Okay Steven I do think that you are right for…. nope never mind seriously we need football in our Universities. Yes there are big price tags on the opportunity for having football played at a college. It is basically like the best advertisement that you have for your school. As a student that is looking at colleges, colleges with a great athletics program just attracts my eye more than other schools. For it is the experience that students pay for second to the education obviously, so to have a school that has a great football team makes that experience worth more. But as for money, maybe you should go thank your friend, Obama, for putting us billions and billions and billions dollars in debt.

I completely agree with this thought. The United States education is some of the worst in the world. What I mean by that is, a lot of the students don’t care, the school curriculum in high school isn’t as nearly as challenging as in Asia. In Asia, kids study harder and longer, like Obama said. There are many exceptions obviously, we have really good private schools and we have really good students, but education isn’t being taken as seriously as it should. Our country should advance in science and mathematics, but it’s lacking. Sports has taken over, and it’s mainly football. The amount of money being invested into football is sickening if you compare it to how much money is being invested into education. Teachers get a low yearly income, while famous coaches get paid millions, and the amount of money being payed to the players is disgusting. As I was growing up as a kid, being successful was always planted into my brain. “Go to school, do well, go to a university, make money because you’re smart.” It almost seems impossible at this point in my life because it seems as though you have to be in sports or a celebrity to make a significant amount of money. It’s sad to see that this has what it has come to. If education is so important, why are the people who are the educators, the teachers, getting paid so low? I don’t understand the logic in that. Also, it’s sad that I didn’t even know that USC had a GREAT education as a kid, I only knew that it had a great football team. That school has fabulous academics but the people in the US don’t see it for that, they see it for the rivalry between USC and UCLA. The people from other countries do though, many people from other countries come to the US so they can SUCCEED and get a great education at these universities. It was shocking to read that the university you attended spent 2 MILLION dollars to fire a coach instead of spending it wisely in education. That’s just plain ridiculous, but I’m sure things like that happen everyday. No coach deserves to be paid that much money, no contract should allow someone to get paid such a large number to play or direct sports. Sports are great recreation and a stress reliever, but schools need to be putting their money elsewhere. It’s safe to say that education has suffered because of sports in the universities.

All in All I understand that football coaches are perhaps over payed and the money which they receive as salaries could be used to benefit education in a good way but taking away Football for good is like taking food away from a human being. People follow and play Football for many different reason and football players are just as competitive off the field as they well as on.

Universities are not known for their football teams by all people. Depending on what a person is looking for in a university, will be what they are looking at. For example, if a high school junior or senior is looking for where they want to attend college to become a lawyer, they will look up schools who have highly educated lawyers. If a student wants to pursue their future as a football player, then yes, they will look at the football team of the schools. People who enjoy watching football, but do not necessarily attend college, may know a certain school for their football team. That does not include the entire population of people who have any interest in universities. Football players are bringing in money as people pay to watch the games, which encourages them to pursue their goal later on in life. Steven Salzberg mentions running a casino in universities as an alternative, saying that it is the same thing. It is completely different, as encouraging one to play a sport will lead them to hopefully playing on professional teams and encouraging one to gamble is basically telling them that it is okay to throw away their money. Gambling puts many lives at risk as far as their financial situation.

Universities shouldn’t cut football because that would be stupid. I’m not even a massive football fan, but if you cut football you also cut the kids who need money for getting into college. And who says that football is the only sport doing this? what about basketball or baseball? I know in basketball coaches get paid tons of money too and the athletes get special privileges like football players. So a university really cant football because then football for just having kids who want to go into the NFL because football would then point at another sports program, like basketball, and demand that basketball gets cut because they are abusing there power too.

I think it is good that you write an article on your point of view about this issue. I don’t merely agree in your entire proposal, but there are certain things that got my attention. First of all I completely agree with you and the idea that science is very important at this time when other countries are developing way faster than United States. Also is obvious that football is growing more in popularity than science, but that does not means that scientist are changing what they like to do for football. The fact that coaches get paid with really high wages is something I think is kind of a waste of money and that money could have a better use. Now, what I did not liked, and what I disagree with is that getting rid of football. Getting rid of this sport is not as easy just taking away one sport and telling fans to find another sport to follow. Taking football out of college is also taking away the illusion and all the effort of thousands of students. As people have said in previous comments, there are students who were born in families that cannot afford a University, but football gives them a chance to reach their dreams and aspirations. There are kids that already want to go university to be like one of their favorite players. Football is stimulating the high school students to go to college. Probably without football hundreds of students would rather just start working after high school, than going to college. I think finding solutions would be more helpful for this issue, than trying to get rid of things that are more popular than science. Maybe what is missing is more support for high school students interested in science. If football players are being successful because of helpful scholarships, then the same tactic should be applied to scientists. Poverty is one of the main reasons why high school students do not go to college, so if the problem is detected lets try to solve it.

Football in our universities is not necessarily a negative for our society but it comes with its flaws. Lets start with the positives: it provides education for some people that wouldn’t have that opportunity if they didn’t play football, it’s a level of entertainment and university pride for the students, and it provides some revenue for the university. Granted the football player’s level of education is not expected to be very high its still gives them the opportunity at an American education. Football is a part of American heritage and society more then any other sport or activity. Every little kid in an American home knows what football is all about and what their dad’s favorite team is. As young as I could remember I liked the Miami dolphins just because my dad always cheered for them; I had no idea why I like them its just a family team. Sports teams give Americans hope and pride; the aspiration of saying that my team beat your team gives us the drive to keep cheering. The reason we are so lively when it comes to college football is because its something that America has that no other country has. To identify with a certain team gives Americans something to cheer for and football is unique to America which gives fans more pride for their team, and if its your university it raises the ante for your level of pride for your team. To take football out of our universities would be like getting rid of our one unique American tradition that makes America special. As a young kid we all hope to be the next sports star, get all the attention, be rich, and have no problems. When we watch these kids play this game for a university it inspires us to do something great to achieve fame and riches, but we fail to realize the after effects of football on the bodies of these kids. How many times have we watched a great athlete in college get to the pros then slowly but surely wash out and have nothing to offer society? When these athletes finally hang up their cleats, their bodies are bruised, crushed, and spent to the max; some of these players are addicted to pain medicine and have multiple surgeries to correct their bodies. I believe we should modify the university football system, these kids are expected to win and if they don’t they are put under extreme pressure. We need to go back to the basics and understand why people play sports in the first place is not fame or glory its to have fun.

Well I agree to a degree, but for a different reason. Being a scholarship athlete myself, (although not for football) I found it much more difficult to get a scholarship then an equivalent female athlete. This is because Universities must give out equal amounts of money in scholarships to both males and females. However, females don’t have football programs and thus are more privileged to receive money in other sports. Main point being, if males have football team then the SHOULD get more money for scholarships then females, or there should be a female football team. I don’t really think that a female football league would be as lucrative for schools though. So my proposal is that the football programs should be separate. They could be school owned club teams, but no scholarships could be handed out for them from the school.

I believe that the author of this novel is correct in the aspect that football plays to large of a part in today’s college society. But I disagree that it should be taken out completely. College students want something else to do besides the normally things offered at colleges, and at this day and age the most common activity chosen is football. Taking away football will only increase the problem as college students would become angry and in the long run they would still find something fun for them, I would even think they would even still go to football events even if they were a good deal away from the school. Taking football away would only fuel the want to be hipster rebel mentality that is all ready plaguing a large population of American youth. This mentality, not football is the problem. And taking away football would only fuel the problem.

A part of me wants to disagree with what you are saying. Yet a stronger wiser part of me agrees with you. I agree to that colleges need to focus on what colleges were made for, education. Nowadays it is very difficult to get into college; it is not fair that some people get a pass for being able to throw a football better than most people. A lot of successful athletes do not get really good grades, yet they get into precious such as UCLA. While the rest of work our butts off to get really good grades, the athletes are able to not focus on getting good grades. They, the athletically gifted, can get less than 3.0 GPA and get into UCLA, while the average GPA to get into UCLA is 4.6 GPA. That is extremely not fair. Don’t take me wrong being that good at a sport is difficult, but is it fair to over look bad grades?

I agree with the article for many reasons. Football should absolutely be banned from universities. There is a stereotype that all football players are dumb. Stereotypes are derived from a bit of truth though. Colleges just want their sports teams to be the best and they do not care how intelligent the athlete actually is. Students have to work extremely hard in school and make sure they have a vast amount of extracurricular activities. Some students, even with their perfect GPAs, still cannot get accepted in to the universities that they want. However, because colleges want their football teams to be the best, they accept top players no matter what their grades are. This is completely unfair to the students that work the hardest and end up not being able to attend the schools that they want. Top students should be at the top schools so they can get the best education. America is slowly becoming dumber and dumber as each day goes on. This is because no one cares about education; people only care about being entertained and having a good time. We used to be the top country in science and technology. Now people are just too concerned about when the next season is starting up again. America is looking like a joke to the rest of the world. No other counties have football and that is why they are prospering more than us. Universities spend tons of money on their football programs. They should be spending more of their money on their educational programs. Another option for all of that money would to be to offer more scholarships and financial aid to students who are worthy of going to these top schools but cannot afford it. Wasting money on equipment for sports that do not matter over giving that money to students who actually need it is ridiculous. Money is also wasted on building new stadiums and paying coaches absurd amounts of money so that they will coach at their school and not somewhere else. Also, people who are not even involved in football spend their time watching the games. This takes away from their studying time. Students would rather hang out with their friends at football games then study which is what they should be doing. This is yet another reason why America is declining. Universities pump up their teams so much and put so much effort into advertising them all for nothing. Of course football is enjoyable to watch but after the game is over then nothing happens. People go on living their lives like nothing happened. They did not gain anything or lose anything by watching or even participating in the game. Once the season is over, people act as if nothing even happened. Most players that play in college do not even go on to do anything with their lives like go to the NFL. They just go through college barely learning anything and playing football. Then after they graduate they become nothing. They have a half education with more than likely no career options ahead. Football should definitely be taken out of universities for good.

Although I feel that Salzberg makes some interesting points that I never knew, or much less would ever expect, sports, including football, can be tremendously helpful to a person. Now, I am not saying that it helps a person become more “popular” but if someone from say, Washington goes to college in Iowa, then being involved in a sport, in anyway, could potentially help them have a smoother transition into the new environment. When Salzberg quoted Obama’s statement saying, “We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair”, this does have reason and meaning that we are becoming as he said a “football-rounded” world, but we are missing an predominant point, if you are a football player that does not mean you are unable to be a “winner of the science fair”. Students may choose what college they attend because of the sport they are interested in, but also, many, or a good number, receive scholarships which will make them lean more towards that school because it may cost less then another. People who go to college generally go with a plan, or an idea of what they would like to pursue with their life. For many, having a sport to play is just a friendly addition to what they are really there for. Few really believe that the sport they are involved with will guide them through the rest of their life, so therefore, many have a back-up-plan, which would mean they would have to get an education, which is what they are in college for. Along with the point that a sport is a good addition, in many cases, sports can help people. When you are involved in a sport, you usually need to maintain a 2.0 to 2.5 in order to be eligible to play. With that, an athlete must at least maintain a C/D average. For many, it even helps them balance their lives, it may be hard to believe but someone who plays football could actually be getting better or decent grades because they have something they are working for or even something that relieves the stress, to the point where having so much weight from school on their back is lightened. It is a bit extreme and crazy to actually know how much money people are willing to put out for, in this article, football. That is something that I would personally say needs to be dealt with just because with the falling economy money does need to be put in more needed areas. With that issue resolved though, I feel like foothill is something that makes people happy and builds up energy, and that is the reason so many people love it, by taking something so important to many people away from them because is it too loved, in a sense, well that does seem unfair.

Article Response I believe that football should be taken out of universities. Some of the reasons that I think Football programs should be taken out of universities is for the safety of the players, dismissing football could raise students focus on academics leading to smarter individuals who will one day be productive members of society. I think that Steven Salzberg, the author of this article went a tad too far when he said that universities should entirely eliminate football. All of the money already spent on stadiums and uniforms and whatever other expenses that comes along with football programs would just go to waste if we just obliterated football from universities. Stevens argument about educating engineers, scientists, technicians, doctors, ect. was very well put and I agree with it because if we continue to strive towards better athletes then people will/might stop paying attention to the people who really deserve the respect, the fame, and the money. As for my personal note, I have confidence in the fact that football should be obliterated from the educational university program because in reality, football ( or any sport for that matter) has nothing to do with education, what I believe deserves the focus of students is expanding their minds so that they can provide something for the world that we live in. Also, another point that I feel is necessary to add to this discussion is that college football players get paid and extravagant amount of money for being strong and knowing how to play the game. I for one do not believe that these men should be paid the amounts that they are being paid. The university football programs are still going strong despite the budget and staff cuts. I for one think that this is wrong because in order for students to learn they need teachers and materials and if they don’t have access to those learning necessities then there isn’t any point in even showing up. Another argument could be how with all of the training and preparations these teams need to under go they’re losing time for studying and doing the required and necessary work to get a good education. Basically, what I’m saying is that since football players spend a majority of their time playing/ practicing for the games they have no time to study so that they can become smarter individuals. One of the most prominent reasons that football should be taken out of universities, in my opinion, is because of the fans. When football fans go out to watch a game there is usually the consumption of alcohol involved and when you’ve got two teams who have a rivalry going then the fans may get rowdy and someone could possibly end up getting hurt. To summarize, personally, I agree with Steven Salzberg because he had brought up many convincing points within his article that managed to further support my opinion of eliminating the football program from universities entirely so that the students can focus on education.

Football: Yea or Nay? I agree one hundred percent with the author, Steven Salzberg. Football is nothing but a drain on colleges, resources, and students. I believe that allowing someone into a university because they are physically talented is a major problem. According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, a university is “an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees.” The definition states that a university is a place of higher learning. I would not consider learning how to throw a “pig skin” could be classified as higher learning. In fact, it sounds more like digressed learning; as if we are moving intellectually backward towards hunting with spears and nets like cavemen. The definition also states that a university provides “facilities for teaching and research.” Last time I checked, there was no research to play a game of football, just a group of people that thought that the easiest way to get to college is to mindlessly throw balls around and run full-speed into people solely to get a ball. Did the rules in Kindergarten teach us nothing? Finally the definition states that they are “authorized to grant academic degrees.” I have never heard anyone brag or boast about a degree in football. Frankly, just typing those words, degree in football, made me laugh a little in my chair. In the article, Steven Salzberg talks about how we need to remove football from colleges to keep our position as a scientific leader in the world. I agree with this completely. Allocating more money towards the sports programs at universities will have a devastating effect on science, math , and English. Students that don’t benefit from a new football stadium might feel left out, like the money they pay to the university is not even going towards educating them. Another reason football is a detriment to the university system is that it primarily involves male athletes. In my high school, we have a powder puff football program for girls but it’s a joke. Football is really only for men and only men play on these university teams. It is a very men-centered sport, where the only women participants are cheerleaders. Steven Salzberg mentioned President Obama’s State of the Union address, about how we need to start to give more attention to people that win science fairs rather than to people that win super bowls. Football has become an over-praised, over-glorified mess. Players cheat, take steroids, and do anything to get ahead and the children of America grow up wanting to be “just like them”. Most young boys will watch the super bowl with their dads and they will talk about how eventually, that young boy will grow up and mature into a meat-headed, self-obsessed college student that does not benefit the college and doesn’t benefit from it. People claim that they will play in college and make a career out of football but think about it, if by the off chance you get onto a professional team, what’s the shelf-life of that career? You can play for a few years and then you’re done with no talent except knowing the rules of football. All in all, it would seem that removing football form universities completely is the best way to get current and future generations of student back on the academic track.

Dear Mr. Stephen Salzburg, My Name Is Lukas Tandy McGlasson and I strongly disagree in your article about getting football out of universities. First of all, I agree with the quote saying that the culture of football in American universities is completely out of control. I believe that it is out of control in a positive way. Of course you can counter argue that football in the recent years is becoming the highlight of the American lives and too much money is supporting this activities; but where do you stand? If you seriously believe that “the U.S. will eventually be little more than the big, dumb jock on the world stage,” why do you care so much? Is there something that you need to tell us? Was your father in the NFL or in the NCAA and got hurt and your just taking it out? If that’s the truth then I can tell you a lot about my experiences with that subject. My Father Ed Tandy McGlasson was born in Maryland and revolved his life into the football career. He played for the Rams, Jets, Giants, and the Eagles in the 70’s. Throughout my life, all I wanted to hear were stories about my dad facing the most scary football players alive. He raised me to become a man, and I started to follow his footsteps. Being an athlete there are many responsibilities. First, my father always told me “Greatness comes to those who pay careful attention to the details.” When those words were reiterated into my mind I though it was just about playing the sport. Now, I believe that in everything that you do you need to pursue it while paying careful to the details. If you think about it Mr. Salzburg, one cannot get the “university” schooling and be a failure. The acceptance rate to a university is about 30 percent with a solid B average. If one wants to play football in a university, then they not only have to be smart, but they have to acquire traits and physical abilities. If you believe “The core mission of our universities is to educate our students, not to entertain them with big-time sports events,” then why do you think that 75 percent of the football players have a higher GPA than those not in a sport or extracurricular activities? It is because they pay careful attention to the details and they put the effort to become a better person. If you think that football should be taken out of universities, then do you know how much the crime rate in America would increase? It would increase tremendously due to the fact that football helps more people a year than you can ever count Mr. Salzburg. Think about it, at least 80 percent of all of the football players have been exposed to gang violence and abusive parents. Then want to make names for themselves, because they never got a name from their father. If you really want to try to change the world make humans better of whatever, be my guest, but taking football out of the universities could damage many, many people in America.

Sorry for the length of the comment, I just wanted to address as much as I could.

Football is what separates America from virtually every other country on the planet. We are one of the only countries to actually have football in our high schools, colleges, and professionally. Football in colleges gives athletes, many of whom may not have had the greatest GPA, a chance to get into a school of higher learning by playing well in a sport they’re adept at. Scholarships give them the ability to expand their learning and possibly further their careers in the sport. In many ways football is the pastime that eases the stress of college. The athletes, who must maintain a certain GPA throughout the season, give the other students a sport to watch whenever the team has a home game. I do believe, however, that the athletes and coaches involved in college football programs that need to be pushed to make better choices. It’s not football itself that is the problem; the coaches who make promises to the athletes and the athletes who blindly believe them need to learn. When a coach convinces a student to take more time out of school to practice, or when the coach threatens to kick the kid from the team, this is what hurts the educational experience of college. Yes the program is expensive, and I do believe the coaches are way overpaid, but the fact that students have another chance to get into the college of their choice is worth it. My biggest question is this, why attack only football? There are so many other sports in colleges that waste even more money, and if it’s time that is being wasted, point the finger at wrestling. In general, the average University has nearly 20 sports available to both men and women. Football, generally, has the highest annual income of all the sports, so getting rid of it would cause a major negative on colleges in America. Also, there was an argument that education in Universities has nothing to do with football. University education has nothing to do with any sports; they are just put in place to bring in profit and for the entertainment of whoever decides to watch. Attacking football is just easier because it gets so much more publicity; why not just attack basketball, baseball, or even softball which all impede on the education of the athletes. In total there are nearly 400,000 male and female students in college athletics, not all of them can be playing football. If anything keep football, baseball, and basketball in colleges and drop all other college sports. This would save Universities millions and fewer students would waste their time with sports. Also fewer students would be able to get in on massive sports scholarships, but at least the universities are saving money and giving more time to student education.

As far as being distracting to students, look at the real reason kids are in Universities. Yes, they are there to obtain a degree, but why. They know that a degree leads to higher salaries later in life, but yet again why do they want that. Students know that more money more than likely will give them the opportunity to be happier. Thus, the point of football is to make people happy. Therefore, football is directly in line with the goal of universities, happiness. Besides, if football is taken away the suicide rate will go up, and can you support suicide?

Football should not be banned from the nation’s universities. In the article the author mentions that, “football coaches have been paid ever-higher salaries, and as football staffs and stadiums have been super-sized. All of this effort goes to the care and feeding of a very small number of (exclusively) male students, most of whom get a poor education” This does not effect students who attended the university not to play athletics. If the athletes decide to go to college to play football and try to make the jump to the pro level, the more power to them. If these athletes also decide to door poorly in school and not take advantage of their academic opportunities, that is their fault. This is not the fault of the university. The university provides all the classes and tools necessary for these athletes to succeed academically as well as physically. It is the responsibility of the player to perform in the class room. The students that do work hard in the class room are in no way affected by an athlete not trying hard in a class, because all the tools necessary to succeed are provided to each and every student! The author makes another bold and irrelevant statement in the next paragraph. “This has got to stop. The core mission of our universities is to educate our students, not to entertain them with big-time sports events.” The university educates every single student that attends the university, it is up to the student to appreciate the education and take advantage of the opportunity to learn. The author also says that the football teams contribute nothing to the students, “The football-industrial complex has too much power over our universities. Nothing else can explain how we spend so much money and time on football, which contributes almost nothing to students’ education.” On most college campuses there are shuttles shipping students from one end of campus to the other. There is a great amount of money spent on these shuttles, and do they contribute anything to a student’s education? NO! Unless the student is studying how to become a bus driver it has no impact on the students’ education. The relevance of the aforementioned statement by the author is irrelevant. I am not arguing with the authors’ opinion that students should attend a university for the educational aspect and to enrich their minds and skills for the professional world. I do disagree with the statement that football should be completely eliminated from the nation’s universities. The “poor” education of the athletes mentioned by the author in no way affects the studying of a student that attends the university for academics and attends the university’s football games. No university in the United States of America has a university that has the “core mission” to entertain its students with weekly football games. That statement is just ludicrous. The author of this article uses unjust arguments, and completely ludicrous statements. Football should not be eliminated from universities; it is not harming anybody, and is not ruining the educational opportunities of the students.

I agree to a certain degree with Steven Salzberg. But I do not agree completely. I agree that we are wasting millions of money just to hire a coach and keep a team doing well. I also agree that the money could be spent going towards different groups of the school that would prove to be more useful over all. I also agree that the football style of life in America is overly emphasized. Football shouldn’t be strong, in another aspect, I have rarely heard of any other country actually playing American Football. The only country that seems to play this sport would be America. I consider it completely stupid for our country to be the laughing stock of the world when it comes to other sports such as Soccer, only just a year ago we saw our USA team gets crushed in the second round of the World Cup. That is completely sad when our country seems to boast of how great our athletic program is. I can see that in the Olympics is a great spot for the USA teams, but I don’t see any world tournament level of Football. I think it is overkill if we completely take out University Football from the picture, maybe just not fund it as much or cut it back a lot more. But to take it out of the picture would be disastrous. If this sport that is one of the American highlight is taken out, what is to say that the other athletic sports don’t follow the same path? At that rate then our nation will become the fattest country of the world. I think we should just focus more mainly on the education world, but also to watch football as a leisure sport, not something that is a grand and enormous event that seems to be the heart of many of our youth.

Steven Salzberg, I don’t completely agree with what you claimed in this article. I understand that this article is solely your opinion. I understand your standing on football, but I disagree on taking the action of eliminating the sport completely. Sure it is a profitable business and probably would be best as a private business. I believe football is a great opportunity for many kids, most of which are male. For example in high school it’s a privilege for students to be part of the football team. I am not completely informed of the requirements, but if I am not wrong to be involved in sports the student must maintain a “C” average or higher. So to a certain extent the student has to work hard to be in a team. It is not any different in a college or university. There are many jocks that are intelligent and they use their education wisely. For many it’s the only way to get paid off for a college or university education. Football is not a bad program that is provided to students. As far as I know to play football at the college level there are requirements that the students have to meet to qualify. So as students they have to study a career other than football. I might be wrong in how I think football can be beneficial to students. With that said, I completely disagree with the way America worships football. In today’s world science is what keeps society moving and makes it advance in a race against other countries and with the recent economic deficit it seems we’ve all become careless or ignorant. Like mentioned in your article, universities are paying big money to football staff and it’s ironic with the budget cuts. It is money that can be used towards renovation, school programs, or school supplies. It’s ridiculous that schools pay big quantities to sports like football that most likely or probably have less than 50% of career success. This is a very controversial topic with the many football fans in America. Football is a great sport that when entering a university looks good, but now a days its glorified and schools are centered and judged by their football team. People have lost interest in the academics of a school. They don’t see science as it is a form of evolving our world they are far more attracted to entertainment. It’s an industry that takes a lot of money and time that could be used towards academics. I am not against football what so ever it’s the way people have made it that makes it ridiculous. I am sure this idea of football out of universities is quite impossible and I wouldn’t agree with it because like previously stated it’s a sport program that provides many opportunities to students whether it be in sports or academically. People should appreciate academics. It is in the subjects that people become doctors, lawyers, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and etc. It is through academics that we have prepared people in a world full of ignorance.

This article is absolutely ridiculous. Football gives so many people more options in life by them getting scholarships to football. The scholarship gives them an opportunity to go to a college that they wouldn’t be able to go to without football. Football is Americas sport. People want to see football and it gives them an extreme amount of entertainment. I see the authors point in that the money they use for sports to be used for scientific reasons but it’s still absurd. Maybe cutting down the costs of everything for football and putting it towards more useful causes. Scientific discoveries aren’t the most important thing for us people. Football is more then just a sport. It is an opportunity for kids to find something they are good at and give them motivation. But kids getting scholarships for football helps them incredibly because it cuts the cost of education. If there wasn’t football then there would not be as many students attending college. It gives a lot of boys a reason to continue going to school and getting a better education. And it opens up more jobs within the NFL. But what about basketball, baseball and every other sport? They also spend money for those sports just like football does. Why cut only football? Yes football is dangerous and has a lot of injuries for those that play but the people playing know the risks. They know what they are getting into so that should be the end of it. Yes people should also pay attention to other things like a science fair and treat them like the winners of the super bowl. They should get just the same, if not more, attention then those who succeed in football. But that’s nothing that this author can fix, it’s a conflict that requires time to resolve. All college coaches get paid an extreme amount, not just football. So there is no point in taking out just football. If you want to cut the costs then cut out all college sports together. Football will never be taken out of universities because of all the good it brings to the college and all that attend. If it was taken out, all colleges would immediately be affected and it would become a disaster. I see the authors point with the Maryland coach situation but its just what happens with sports and contracts that involve money. Two million dollars is a lot of money but the players and coaches give the universities much more then two million. Football does require a lot of money but it also gives universities more then they spend. Thousands of people come to the football games to cheer their team and they come with their wallets full of cash. The universities make money off tickets, concession stands, and everything that is sold at the football games. Overall, football brings much more to colleges then it loses. This author was not logical when he wrote this article because it is impossible for football to be removed because of all the issues that would arise

At an economic standpoint, I can see this being very helpful, if the United States decides to cut off Football from our Universities. It would definitely save more money towards our education and also build a new foundation that does not entirely rest on Football. But the thing is, is that Salzberg proposes his analysis a little too broad. What i mean by that, is that he clearly focuses on the outskirts of his idea, not enough information within the opinions of the students, professors,parents, and etc. I believe if the U.S does decide to remove Football from our Universities it would create more problems than sufficient solutions. I say that from my opinion, because Americans rest on Football, undergraduates are accepted into a high level college because of their talents in football and so on and so forth. If there is any solution, it probably be best if the Universities just stop overspending. I guess you can say that I am in between the argument.

For the most part, I would agree with this article, and I won’t deny it’s largely imparted because I just don’t care for football. It’s would have to be my least favorite sport to watch or even hear about. So, because I’ve never really understood the huge hype for football, I find the idea of using the money for other educational purposes to be quite ideal. As a high school senior soon to graduate, I’m constantly told about the budget cuts of schools; how schools are impacted; and how funding is almost nonexistent. So to hear that colleges spend an almost obscene amount of money on football bothers me. Football is a sport, a form of entertainment, and somehow it seems that it’s taken on the importance of academics. Television is entertainment; the movies is entertainment; the media is entertainment, so for a sport to be treated as more seems ludicrous. For a means of entertainment to get superfluous amounts of money, while people’s jobs are cut, and funding too, speaks for itself just how far out of hand the sport is viewed. If even a fourth of what is being funded for football could be just given back to the schools somehow, think of how great it could affect our colleges? How much it could ease the minds of the many graduating high school students, who bite their nails in hope of just receiving enough money to pay for their tuition. It just baffles me how America has slipped from what we used to be. Our values and focus just seem off and out of place. But even with these thoughts, I don’t think football should be entirely cut out. Because even though football is over blown, it does serve its purpose as a form of entertainment. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having football as an outlet for the stresses of college and the rigorous work regime. The sport brings people together under a common goal; a common pleasure: to see people fight over a silly ball. But whether or not I find it silly isn’t the point; it’s just an opinion. I know I’m not the only person who wants to see America higher among the ranks of the elite; among the higher of the educated in science in mathematics, so why not start with getting rid of the unessential’s; and start boosting the essentials. Let the studying continue and flourish, and let the fun stick to the weekends with the sports. America doesn’t have to feel dejected because we’ve lost sight of what matters, because our country is never hopeless. Just as children stop playing with their toys eventually, people can grow up as well. Football will always be around, just like every other sport, but the time we spend is always being expended; so we should use our time as best as we possibly can with our circumstances.

I agree with you 95% Steve. Universities are meant to make students great people and smarter people. Football is a great sport, but why have college football when we have professional leagues. Professional games are much better to watch then a college football game. These are my own stats, but i believe 5 out of those 50 football players ever become something with there sport, and even worst probably 10 or more end up being injured, and the rest just nothing. Same goes to the students watching,a football game probably last lets say 6 hours including dressing up etc.., but then parties last longer depending on how the team does etc. This precious time is being wasted, students attend the games because they are 5 minutes away and should support their school, but why not support it by making it a smarter university. The 5% come from how you just mentioned Football, instead of all the other sports. Colleges have clubs, and if there’s not a club for the sport they like the students can make them. School should be for learning and sport should be an extra activity that person wants to do, but it should never interfere with education. Money shouldn’t be wasted on sports, sports will take the country nowhere, but education can make everything possible. Thank you Mr.Salzberg for the interesting point of view and sharing it, for everyone to read.

Football is a massive part of American culture. It is a sport, unique to our country, that has been worshiped and revered for decades. Although it serves no scientific or technological purpose, football is a lifestyle and a cultural tradition here in the United States. It is for this reason that I disagree that we should eliminate college football from our universities. You say that football in our universities is, “hurting our competitiveness in technology, science, and engineering.” However, I completely disagree. You fail to realize that not every child in our country is a genius, and therefore not everyone can excel in science or engineering. Why shouldn’t those who are not blessed with impressive intelligence still excel at something? (That’s not to say all football players are not bright- I know there are many smart players out there).Football gives an opportunity to those men who are not as mentally gifted as the engineering geniusus, providing them with an opportunity to accomplish great things and to bring joy to the American people. Football as a form of entertainment helps members of our country to be happy and to feel dedicated and passionate about a sport. It helps those who ARE working hard in science or technology to be able to take a break and relieve stress by simply turning on the television. It also helps many to feel accepted if they belong to a fanbase of a certain team, thereby helping to unify our people and to encourage sportsmanship and drive. Football is also a motivating factor for students wanting to enter college. It motivates football players to go to college to play their sport, which motivates those teens who are not the brightest or who simply just love the sport to continue on with their education. Players who otherwise might not have gone to college or who could not go to a good, prestigious college without a football scholarship go on to receive a college education, with only football as their motivating factor. In this way, more students earn college degrees and receive college educations because of football. Also, you are being highly biased. You’re pointing the finger only at football, without acknowledging the plethora of other sports our universities have. It is not only football which can potentially distract students from their studies; soccer, basketball, and baseball have the same abilities. You say that,” All of this effort goes to the care and feeding of a very small number of (exclusively) male students, most of whom get a poor education and almost none of whom succeed as professional players.” This is exactly the same treatment and odds that players of a multitude of other sports have. You cannot pick and choose which sports are bad and which are good if all have exactly the same results on education. The only way to really rid the universities of this “problem”, then, would be to eliminate sports completely from college campuses. That would promote obesity and give students a lack of motivation. Overall, it would be nothing less than a tragedy. Football should definitely stay in our universities.

Dear Steven Salzberg, I agree with you that football has entirely way too much influence and power over colleges. I do not think that ending football completely will help the problem. The fan base for college football has become too large to shut down without some retaliation. I do feel that football should feel the same budget cuts that the actual education part of colleges do. With every year that passes colleges are forced to cut more classes, layoff more teachers, and raise tuition. It is apparent to anyone that our education system is being slowed by our current economic situation, but I see no sign that football will stop expanding and spending. Some of my peers might point out that football brings in money for their college through ticket and merchandise sales but if football was so profitable for colleges why do they have to have substantial budget cuts to our education. I do think that football and sports in general are a good way for poor athletes to attend good colleges. Even though, as you said in your article, a lot of athletes that receive scholarships don’t use them for educational purposes I still think it is good for those few that do need the opportunity to get a good education. I believe that the budget for football should be cut down as much as possible and given to other departments in the school that are having trouble with getting up to date equipment and anything that gives students the best quality of learning. People attending our colleges go on to professions that we use and students also go on to run parts of our country. Football players don’t benefit us other than entertainment purposes. College is supposed to teach and train our future generations and not those few who actually go on to the professional football teams. If colleges have to risk the quality of their education just to keep football perks and salaries high our future is not looking too bright. We need engineers, leaders, inventors, entrepreneurs, teachers, and doctors not football player to keep us entertained while our nation gets less intelligent and inventive. With all this being said, I still think that football is a huge part of American culture and it should remain in our high schools and colleges. Football sets us apart from every other country in the world, we have the largest obsession for it and it distinguishes us in a certain way. I’m not a big fan of football but I watch a game occasionally and always tune in for the super bowl because its tradition and gives everyone a sense of nostalgia. If football was taken out of college who would train our future nfl players? Football may appear to only be for entertainment purposes but the injuries from the game contribute to sports medicine education. Also, all the fame that comes with being a football player contributes jobs to people who major in public relations, managing, and business. On the surface football appears to be mindless entertainment but it is actually an industry that helps support the United States.

To start in a general statement, your position is considerably filled with ignorance and limited support. You claim that football is “hurting our competitiveness in technology, science and engineering.” However, Riddell is introducing a new football helmet called the Revolution(TM), a first-of-its-kind helmet using new technology with the intent of reducing the risk of concussion. This computer-designed helmet marks the first significant structural change in a player’s headgear in nearly 25 years. Obviously, this marks a spark in technology, rather than a decline. And, if your argument is that a big-name company is doing all the work, that is completely incorrect: The design of the Revolution helmet is based on the findings of a long- term study of professional football players conducted by Biokinetics & Associates, an independent engineering consulting firm, and SEVERAL universities- including both professors AND students. This example also goes along with President Obama’s State of the Union, rather than against it, like you argue. The technology that goes into football has opened new jobs. And, Obama says that we are home to the world’s best universities, so what needs changing? In addition, claiming that football and casinos serve upon the same basis is very ignorant. Gambling is something you can’t do legally in public until you are at least 18. Football is the all-American sport that every person has grown up playing and watching. Universities are not about money. It’s about life experience and preparation. Football is a real business in America, and colleges are preparing their athletes for that. The Ivy League also sets the example that they are looking at student’s academics, not athletics upon admission. Thus, their football players get a great deal of excellent education, and prepare their students for the innovative world uncase they do not go onto the NFL. Furthermore, BYU has a fantastically excelled student body, with an outstanding football team. Their players are receiving regionally accredited education. Removing football from our universities will inhibit many from earning a college degree. With such severe economic struggles, some students need a scholarship from universities. And if we made a separate league just to make revenue, do you really think it would prosper? If you are trying to keep the focus on education, then do not implement an ignorant strategy of drawing kids away from schools and pushing them towards a money hungry business. Universities allow students to partake in sports, including football, only if they maintain, at least, the determined minimum GPA. So, by eliminating football and creating this separate profit-making business, we would ultimately be giving players an “out” from schooling and education, and an out from consequences. Also, you utilize President Obama’s State of the Union speech as a way to say that we are putting athletics before education? When comparing us to China? They train their toddlers intensively incase they have even the slightest ounce of a chance of making it to the Olympics! If we want to be more like them, more dedicated, more mature, then we should still be encourage sports, starting at a young age to give our athletes this same mentality to excel and succeed. They can then put these habits towards education and future business, like they already do. Football isn’t the problem. It’s ignorant people with ignorant arguments. It’s teachers that shouldn’t be teaching. It’s people in the government that waste our money. Football is a passion shared by the millions in our country. We need our hobbies, we need our sports, and we need our entertainment, because without it, we are all just a bunch of people hungry for money and power.

It is extremely difficult for me to respond to this article since I am pro football. I want to argue against all of the statements in this article but I would have to agree with most of the statements. Football is celebrated and looked up to so much because it is very entertaining. Football, along with other sports, brings friends and family together. The competition of the game keeps people interested. Yes, it is true that it NFL only entertains people on the weekends but college ball and some NFL games are during the week. What I don’t seem to understand is why football gets in the way of “maintaining our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader”. Football is extremely popular and makes a ton of other issues to fade to the background but if keeping a position as the “world’s scientific and technological leader” is more important then it should not make a difference if football was eliminated or not. Technology and science are very important and at colleges all over the states there are many new discoveries being made. One of the main problems you seem to have is the recognition for the new findings. The new findings are more important than a football game I can admit but it does not mean they are not if the new findings are not celebrated like a football victory. Football is what makes high schools and colleges go round. Coaches do get paid more than decent money that is true but the college itself does not pay for the entire salary. Also if small numbers of males get a poor education it is not football’s fault it is the individual’s fault for not having the drive inside them to get a great education. Universities are not, “providing a free training ground for the super-wealthy owners of professional football teams, while getting nothing in return”. Universities do this because they want to. They do not care if a person leaves their college and never looks back. Some people do not seem to understand that having a decent well-known football team at their college helps the school. The better the football team is and the more known the college is for the team the more applicants apply to that college. I do not seem to understand why you are singling out one sport. There are a ton of college sports that have over paid coaches and victories that are over celebrated but those sports do not seem to bother the author. After an NBA team wins the championship there is a huge parade the day after. Many colleges are known not only for their football team or baseball team or even their soccer team but also for their education. Stanford is known for football and education along with the U. of Oregon. Sports give student athletes the drive to do well in school. Also on the topic of football having too much power is absurd. Individuals spend money and time on multiple college sports not just football. I personally do not like how football was the only sport singled out. Football is not the only popular sport in the U.S.

I absolutely agree with your point on how fooball programs at universities is ridiculously excessive and should be reduced. On the other hand, i do not agree with your point on that football should be excluded completely from universties. The reason being is because i know that i have lots of fun going to football games with my friends and cheering on the boys we know on the team. Also because i feel that football is a part of the college experience! What i feel should be done is the football coach should discuss the necessitys of what he needs to spend on equipment, the players, etc. After that is acheived there should be more money left over and the board of the school can discuss how they can put that extra money towards the academic programs for the school. This way their both meeting halfway and not one is more disappointed then the other, their both getting the majority of what they want.

Stephen, your counterargument completely contradicts yourself. You agree that Football can be very profitable. If it is profitable, why do you have a problem with it? The way i see it, the only reason football could POSSIBLY be harmful to colleges is that they would be taking tax-payers hard earned money and spending it on a sport. Although, since the school earns the money right back, there is no problem. Also, Football (even sports in general) provides a vital asset to the colleges. People like to go to colleges that are well known (USC, UCLA, Stanford); all big sports schools. Obama is not a reliable figure to quote. Talk a bad role model; this is the man that wants to tax Americans to health care.

I’ve too been a fan of sports like most teenagers, but I cannot understand why the American government would permit so much money spent in such programs. We always hear from the politicians that we need to strengthen our countries math and science levels, but they are of course not willing to sacrifice their entertainment to the well being of the future of its citizens and the country as a whole, because they know they will be judged by the many football fans. But they are loosing track of the important things, and right now the most important thing is to make sure we don’t fall behind in the world’s increasing demand for better technology. If we keep our misguided ways, we will end up not only as an obsolete country but also as slow-in-the-head country.

There are many fields in the educational system that can use some money; it does not necessarily have to be on math and science, there are many arts that could use the money too. Even though the money we spend in football is keeping the students fit and in good healthy conditions, we must not put all our focus on it right now, there are way too many students that need scholarships and are not being recognized by their academic talents. As well as football players are being studied by individuals outside the field to pull them aside after the game and offer them a guaranteed entrance to a university, so should our mathematic classes, or our science classes. We most have these kind of genius hunters all over our high schools.

I agree with your article about college Football in universities. Not only is an absurd amount of money spent on players who won’t go professional, but its saying that it’s okay to slack through school because sports will get you into a college. Being someone who is completely uncoordinated, I think it’s unfair that I have to work twice as hard as athletes who get scholarships to outstanding colleges based on their sports abilities. Athletes only need a GPA of 2.0 to stay in their sport, and if they’re good enough they can get scholarships to UCLA, USC, and almost all other high profile colleges. Where as any other normal person attempting to apply to those colleges would need an outstanding GPA, SAT score, and be extremely well rounded. Sports scholarships encourage athletes to excel in fitness vs. education instead of equally balancing them. Also, College Football has a high injury rate. Players suffer from concussions, to hearing loss, to broken bones. Once a player is injured, their season is over; their scholarship revoked and now they are studying amongst students who worked much harder to be there. America is being surpassed by other countries technology wise. We once used to be ahead of every other country, and now our society doesn’t care about the newest technology anymore unless it concerns their cell phones. Also, the amount of money being spent on football is ridiculous. Sure, it brings in revenue, but not nearly as much as it spends. College used to be for education, now the only thing that’s glorified are its sports teams. Colleges shouldn’t be recognized by who has won more games, but by the achievements of the individual students. Nobody knows the names of people who work for NASA, or who is leading the research in the cure for cancer, let alone what college they come from. What people do know is the players who run around catching a ball in a pointless game. They’re not benefiting society in any way other than entertainment. Football isn’t even in the Olympics, because the rest of the world doesn’t recognize it as a sport. On that note, I completely agree with your article. I think it’s a shame that colleges don’t have the same views as yourself; maybe they should read your article. It’s about time someone made an effort in renewing America’s efforts to scholastically advance.

I got to agree with you; personaly I do not like football but i do not have anything against it. how I see it you are a hater towards football. And yeah, America does give more credit to football then to education, but not just America but also other countries in other sports like Mexico, Argentina, Brasil, Germany, and ect. Also not to ofend anyone, I find the sport American football very stupid in every aspect: what is the whole point of it just to takle another player down? that is stupid and it says alot about people; people like too see others get hurt and hurt others. But that is just me; others may think the same towards other sports.

Just the other day when i was applying for collage I saw that some of my friends that play American football and have lower achademic grades then me (I am not saying I am a 4.0 gpa student) are getting into better collages then me by scholarships. how do we know that these students that play football or any sport in particular need this opportunity more than those of us who do not do sports? I see all my friends that play football that just do not take school seriously. Do we really want those people in collage. Can therse athlets do well in sports and in education at the same time ? I have learned through experiences that when a person tries to do everything at the same time gets nothing done. I myself was a profesional soccer player, a student, a break dancer, a capoeiro, and a base guitar player. Not all off this went well in fact most of it went bad. i did not make it in soccer, did not make it in

the rock band, and a was a horrible student.

Sure American football leaves alot of money, but realy look inside it: who invests it. The so called nerds are the ones who realy help America, and America still cares more about football then the real thing. Americans just do not want to think: they prefer too watch how a man gets takled over a ball than to find the properties of a atom or of the human being.

So who should we trust to go into collage and make a better America should it be athlets champions or should it be science fair champions, a pretty face or a four eyed freak? You see, that is the problem of America and the rest of the world we go by the outside image and not the inside image.

there are different aspects on this subject, i could go for or against this; because like everything, there is a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing about sports is that it is healthy for everyone, it is fun and it is a way to get easy money out of the talent in one. Alot of people do sports, others like to watch it being played, and some just do not like the ideas of running, jumping, and the adrenalin.

Football is way more than just a sport. Football, the great American sport is watched by millions of people every year. College football gets the most television attention over any other college sport. Football teaches life lessons to many young adults by teaching them real life experiences. The National Football League would not exist without college football. There is no reason whatsoever to eliminate college football from universities. Football is widely seen on television throughout the world. Whether its college football or Professional football they are both similarly popular to television. When young kids watch their favorite college team play they see themselves, wearing those uniforms with their school mascot on their chest, being a hero for the school and everyone else watching the game. Football portrays the American dream where you can be whatever you want just as long as you are truly determined. College football creates a large number of viewers every year and without it would make society duller. Football teaches many lessons about life as well. It creates an atmosphere that is equal to the real world after done with high school or college. Football shows how working together in a team which represents a society in the real world helps the team or world becomes more successful. If each player on the team does not fulfill their jobs they will be unsuccessful and lose. This is exactly like the real world where if a company does not work together and do their jobs they will not be successful and be bankrupt. Football also teaches to never quit and always try your hardest every down. If in the real world you used the ideal to not quit and always try your hardest you will be far more successful in life. Football is not just a game but an opportunity to learn unteachable, but only through experience life lessons. Another reason why football should remain in universities is because it would cause the National Football League to not exist. The NFL creates over one hundred billion dollars a year by fans. This is a huge amount of money and obviously shows that almost everybody in the united states enjoys watching football. College football helps the NFL scout the very talented players that developed in college. The NFL would most likely not exist without the training grounds of college football that helps sift the most talented players and put them in the NFL. If they still had the NFL without college football the talent level in the NFL would most likely be horrible compared to the jaw dropping talent today. The Super Bowl is the most widely watched event in all of television that is an American tradition for many families. The commercials in the Super Bowl cost millions for a small 5 minute time slot. College football helps generate the multibillion dollar industry of the National Football League. All in all you could take away college football. Think about how much more boring life would seem for students in college that already have a stressful time with their expensive tuition. They need to a place to escape and what could be better than the great American game of football where they can watch students from their school fight to give their school a better name. It is basically a controlled war and victory is celebrated more than any other sport because of the small amount of games played each season. Football brightens the lives of America.

Your article is quite intriguing. I would first like to point out that the University of Maryland is willing to spend on their football team for a reason. That reason being that they would like to be far more competitive against all other universities. I personally, am not a fanatic of football. Football is “necessary” at times. I say necessary because football is the backbone of what this country is known for. Football dates back as far as the 1900′s. We follow tradition from generation to generation. Although i am quite assured that colleges do unnecessary spending on things related to football such as this should be spent educating. Even if we eliminate college football, we would still have other sports. Society in general doesn’t exactly do as we want. For example, we elected Obama because of his “changes” he proposed that will help this nation. He passed the health care bill with over half of society not needing the bill. Anyways, it doesn’t really matter. Society spends money on other useless things for entertainment.

Dear Steven Salzberg, I had believed that this article had potential for a debate sparking, intelligent, well written article, but like another reader has expressed, I have been disappointed. Instead I was left to read a desperate plea from a person who wishes to be known as a radical, but put no thought into how to convey his message. You have provided no concrete facts and statistics and make your assumptions based purely on speculations and stereotypes. Although I do agree that it would be nice to focus a bit more on sciences from time to time, students and fans are not as obsessive as you childishly claim. Football stories do not dominate our American society, contrary to your statement, “The college football season is over too. Now we can be spared the breathless, hyperbolic stories about football for a few months, at least until next season.” Really? Are you purposefully trying to sound like a seven- year- old with a thesaurus? Although football is important to some major schools, it serves a basic, necessary purpose: school spirit. Whether the game is won or lost, everyone suffers or rejoices as a unit, giving a unified sense of belonging, essential to a college experience. Secondly, you focus on the stereotype of the brainless meathead of a jock being the key players on any decent football team, which makes you appear both appalling and laughable. The football students must maintain a certain GPA to stay on the team, even take some of the more rigorous courses, just like in high school. The schools with the best football teams- USC, UCLA, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.- rank among the higher exclusivity rates, and thereby grants only the high achieving students admission to the school. Ergo, the colleges with successful football teams tend to produce more successful students. Finally, for those the less exclusive schools, it’s true that its students might not go on to invent the flying car or patent a time machine. However, similar to someone in love with academia, or with music, or theatrical arts, there are those in love with the game. Their passion may not be in the area that you deem acceptable, but it can give them that rush of exhilaration that I know we both have felt before, whether onstage, in a classroom, or anywhere else. Who do you think you are, saying that their drive is unacceptable? It is not you place to say that they are what is wrong with society and the educational system of the age. It’s people like you who propose bills such California’s Proposition 8, banning gay marriage because you don’t like it. People should have the right to do what makes them happy. In closing, I strongly urge you to revise your arguments, or thesis (and go to a writing class, please…), to try and write a more intellectually stimulating article. If I may be so bold, and I mean no offence, but you portray yourself as a whiney high school student who was not included enough in group activities. Football is an overall beneficial sport and is not to be condemned for rallying people together.

Steve Salzburg brings up an interesting point, part of which I agree with and disagree with. He is right on the aspects of getting students the education they have paid for. When you are spending 2 million dollars to fire a coach, I see that as wasting money that could be put to good use like Steve said, technology, science and anything else that could help the students further their education. The price to get into a college is quite high now a days and it wont be getting any cheaper any time soon. So when you learn that schools spend billions of dollars on a sport that three quarters and more of the students don’t even play, what incentive does that give to the students to go to that college. I mean these students find out that a major part of the schools budget goes to football, and then why in the world would they go to that in particular school. Students pay thousands of dollars to learn and get educated in areas of their life that they want to improve in. Not saying that football doesn’t educate students, it does, in a sports mentality kind of way; but the majority of students look into colleges want the colleges to excel their educational programs and not just football. Although, if I may say, football brings in a good profit for some schools, the biggest profit comes from students joining the college that they are accepted to because tuition is so high these days. Now if all students were educated on the fact that a majority of the schools budget goes to football, like I said earlier, how is that providing an incentive to the incoming students to join the college when they know that not much money is being put into what they want. I am a huge football fan and this is where I come to be at odds with Mr. Salzburg. The American people love the sport. Whether it is in college of professional. The sport is huge revenue for big television programs and for company’s that pays to have their product displayed in the commercials during these games. Now if even the slightest hint of wanting to get football out of colleges arose in the United States, programs like that would not let that happen even to the slightest extent. College football also provides a chance for some of the more athletic, but not as intellectual students, to get into college and get an education. These students go through high school with a tremendous ability towards the sport, football and if it was taken out of college these abilities would be put to wastes and their education could be at risk because of the opportunity a scholarship could have offered them. Now others might say, like Salzburg, that the kids don’t try in school, that they are total jocks and meatheads and don’t put any effort what so ever into their education. This is where people are wrong and I can prove it first hand. I know plenty of football players that have kept a three point five grade point average and above while playing the sport. These men are no different that an average student, just the fact that they have a great gift given to them. So when Salzburg says that he wants football out of the universities, he is saying that he doesn’t want to given special opportunities to students. He is, or seems like he is, against the help that schools provide, through football, to get students an education that they maybe could not have gotten without the sport. My last point that opposes Salzburg is, if you take out college football then what’s next? Baseball? Volleyball? It could be a number of things and without sports kids have nothing to do on their off time. It would cause a depression in the amount of kids that start sports early in life. Kids would stop playing little league baseball, for example, because they know that it will just stop after high school. Sports are a necessity in our colleges and football is one of the top three. It is not only needed for the schools but also the students.

Mr. Steve Salzberg, First of all, I would like to show my great respect for you as a Professor and Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland and as a writer at Forbes. I fear, you have touched a very sensitive matter in the American culture, since all professional football supporters, support college too. By being against football, you are being against the sport that most people entertain in this country. I am not from here, the U.S. I am from the little tiny Portugal, right next to Spain in Europe’s tail. After the European Soccer Cup been held in Portugal in 2004 and the construction of 6 huge soccer stadiums, used at its maximum only in two or three games during the championship, many Portuguese were outraged because the government had spent millions of Euros, paid by the people who pay taxes, in those stadiums. In this case, the 6 stadiums are football and its costs, the government and the money paid to build the stadiums are the universities and the money that goes to football and the many outraged Portuguese are you. What I am trying to say is that this isn’t a new problem in this problem filled world, but it is something that is starting to affect the U.S. and problems like these are not usual in this wonderful country. Now, let’s get to the point. I hate to follow the main stream but I disagree with your article. Mainly because you base your opinion mostly on the relationship cost/benefit of football. I disagree on the fact that universities spend a lot of money on football when they should be spending it in other departments of those universities for the reasons that other posters above have given, such as the fact that alumni make large donations to the universities that pay most of the teams’ costs. Since you think that the cost/benefit of football is not positive, I believe you are missing some aspects of the sport and its influence on the different colleges. To begin with, economically, yes, it might cost more money to upkeep a football team than the money that is received from it, like you said but overall, a football team is much more than just a department in an university that costs a lot of money. Football, advertises a school, which gets the school more applications and therefore that school can raise its GPA acceptance rate and therefore receive better students. Advertising also gets a lot of money for that school. If the football team became independent from the university and just used its logo, like you suggested, it wouldn’t make students want to go to that university. Football also gives the students, the alumni and the students still in there, a feeling of pride for that university, if it is a good one. Pride for the college gets them more donations and more importantly a better college experience. Speaking of college experience, if you suggest that they get football out of universities, then why not get all the other sports out too? And, a college without sports wouldn’t nearly be the same as it is with them. So football adds a big plus on students’ college experience. Most of all, football is a great opportunity for otherwise unnoticed football players to get seen by professional teams. Very important too, is the fact that many high school players can keep playing the sport they love and go to college at the same time instead of playing a few years in their youth. Going back to the main idea of the article, the point that money spent in football should be spent in the development of that university’s education quality, I believe that, for the reasons shown above, if you take that money and try to develop the math department or the physics departments you will be losing more than if you didn’t do it. It surprises me that such respectable person wrote this article, therefore, I believe that you, Mr. Salzberg, only wrote it make people stop and think about the issue and create an opinion something that is REALLY missing in this world: people stopping to think about what they are doing, how the world is behaving, and what they can do to improve it. Thank you for posting this article and thank you for reading, Francisco Carvalho. Note: Please excuse any mistakes in vocabulary, grammar and sentence building. They are due to the fact that English is not my first language but my third.

I would have to say, I think that professional football is very important to who we are as a nation, although as costly as it is, it also gives many Americans drive for various parts of their lives. As for high school and college football, I feel that it would be better to possibly un-integrate football slightly so that students are more focused on academics and schools finances are not so closely tied to it. I think a compromise such as a club team that would then lead to a career choice would be a very wise alternative to the yes or no.

Football is known as the all-American Sport. Many people enjoy watching and playing football. It is a popular sport, which is loved by many. Football is beneficial to many colleges and also the players. It contributes to some students’ choice of colleges and gives them a chance to possibly earn a scholarship. To some students, football is a second chance to attend a great school in order to receive a better education. If their grades were not satisfactory, they could be recognized and given a scholarship to attend a school. Football scholarships allow many athletes to attend their dream school that they maybe could not attend without financial assistance. Each scholarship is earned through the hard work and dedication of players. Scholarships are not handed out to talentless players; the time, effort, and pain should be rewarded. Not only does football gives students a chance of a scholarship or a chance to further their education, but football can also be beneficial to the health of the player. Football is a great way to stay in shape and to stay healthy. It is not a sport that should not be taken lightly. There is a lot of strength, endurance, and patience that goes into this sport. Practices are frequent and long. Many people enjoy playing and being able to stay in shape. Football is a strenuous exercise. Though injuries are a high risk, football allows people to stay in shape and stay healthy. So many people complain about being unhealthy and not getting enough exercise, so why should a form of exercise be taken away from players? It should not. Football should be kept in colleges for these benefits. I do not believe that football truly takes away from the education that students can receive. The funds from football do not come solely from the institution. There are many boosters, parents, and other people that help donate to football funds. There must be funds that are raised in order for players to keep playing. The money earned goes to things such as salaries and even field maintenance. The fees are paid through money earned by outside sources, not just the school. Educational programs do not suffer because of athletic programs. Colleges should be closely monitoring where their money for education programs goes, rather than focus on what football decides to do with the money that they raise. Football is beneficial to universities for multiple reasons. First, football programs bring more students to a specific school Football has the ability to ultimately decide where a person wishes to attend. If a school has an outstanding football program, one may wish to attend there in hopes to be recognized and go pro one day. In addition, football also brings in a lot of revenue. People may buy their favorite sports gear to support their team. Games bring thousands of people to a stadium, which in turn, gives the school more money. The popularity of football intrigues people and should not be ousted. If other people are worried about the cost of education, they should find a way to earn more money, instead of cutting another program.

Why is it just football that should be expelled from colleges? Salzberg says, “If football disappeared, we could get our entertainment from another sport”. This does not make sense to me because I feel that going to other sports events affects people just the same as if they were going to a football game. Steven Salzberg is saying that if football was not in colleges it would not be as bad as we might think it will be because he says we will still have all the other college sports. But what does football have that is so horrible that all the other sports do not have that will make our country’s science and tech students any worse in their learning and our scientists and tech people. I just do not understand why football of all sports will make the United States lower ranked in the world of science and tech. Football is a major part of our American culture and you cannot just eliminate it from colleges. I think the average American would be disappointed if they could not go to college and play football, go watch college football games, or turn on the television to watch some intense college football. I think if football was not in all colleges a lot of boys would not be able to get in the get the education they need because there is no football and that was their only way of getting into a university.

Dear Mr. Salzberg, I honestly see your points, and you bring up valid points. There are many negatives to having football being played in college. However, I see other more important points in support of keeping football in college. The main idea behind all the evidence for football in college is that it enhances the college experience for those in college. College should be kept in college at all levels of play. First, I must address the players. The biggest problem with the players is that if football gets taken out of college, players will have to go from high school to professional play, and that transition in football is tremendous. In other sports, such as baseball and basketball, the transition between high school play and professional leagues is immense, but since they are less physical of sports, people do not get hurt in those sports. However, if a nineteen year old went up against Ray Lewis or Troy Polamalu, the nineteen year old (who would have been in college if he could have played college ball, but instead he went professional because that was his only option) ended up with a massive concussion or a broken leg. Those years in college not only transition him from high school to professional leagues, they allow that kid to grow to his full size and bulk up enough to stand up against the Ray Lewis-es or Troy Palomalu-s of the professional football in America. Also, it gives the players time to mature as people. Those nineteen-year-old football players (as a generalization) aren’t prepared to go live on their own with hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars when they go from city to city finding every club they can to find the women to take back to their hotel room. If they have time in college, they can mature mentally and know that they can’t just sleep with every girl they want, or that they can go do drugs and drink alcohol all the time. For the players’ sake, they need college to mature physically and mentally. For the common students as well, football helps give a certain, unique atmosphere to every college and university. First, many times, the college size and feel is affected by the sports, especially football. Most of the teams with storied football histories are bigger schools. This creates a great feeling of school pride, having most of the students at the game, decked out in their school’s gear, rooting for their team. This brings the students of the school against the common enemy of the other team. Also, for those students who go to a smaller school, they can have the peaceful times where sports are not as big of a deal. However, the most important part of that idea is that there are exceptions. There are big schools that do not focus on sports, and there are small schools with great sports, so the students can find the right college for themselves. For the students, having football in college helps create the an atmosphere to each school. Having football in schools is overall a very beneficial aspect of college. Though there are bad aspects to it, there are many more positives for it. Keep football in college forever! Sincerely, Rawley Hughes

While your article did provoke thought into the necessity of football, it did so staying quite general and vague. American college football provides an incentive to college bound students. A university with no football and no school spirit would not incite students to succeed or thrive. College football is necessary because it sets us apart in the world stage, football creates strong alumni bonds, and it provides depth and perspective to the academic environment. Many scholars have made convincing arguments that the United States is falling behind other students in other countries. However, one must ask the situation in which the comparisons are being made. In other countries that are doing well on standardized testing, one can look at their methods and see that they are using a type of schooling called “Test taking skills”. Basically these students are trained to take tests. If one were to compare the quality of essays between our country and another with more quantitative schooling, it is certain that the essays of the United States would have more quality and depth. The primary recipients of most common alumni donations are the football programs. In your article, you stated that the money spent on coaches and staff could be better spent elsewhere, but without the football programs this money would not exist. Your first point stated that the severance package of the University of Alabama coach was over two million dollars. This is misleading as it gives the reader the impression that the university itself is paying the coach. In reality, there are entire private organizations that are dedicated to funding and staffing the football staff and coaching leadership. This organization, and others like it, is funded primarily by donations from alumni and sponsorships from businesses. In the example of the University of Alabama, a quick internet search reveals that the university pays the head coach a fraction of his four million dollar deal. Depth and perspective in the academic environment can be split into a few groups. First, having school spirit can incite new research or motivation into students’ lives. Games also do much to break the monotony of a normal school life and experience. In a world where students do the same things every day, a game at the end of the week to look forward to can do wonders for a student’s morale. Rivalry on the football field spurs over into many other areas. Just because more people pay attention to the game doesn’t mean that academic competitive teams do not exist. In our free choice world, it is important to remember that people have the decision to pay attention to what they want to. It is not the job of the government to intervene and tell people what to donate money to, or what to change in order to make us more competitive. The United States has always been a global trend setter. A path of follow the leader would not do well with us. Our country has a strong identity filled with strong people. It is important to remember our nation’s values and pastimes.

i think you make a very good point. football is a way students can get into college by means that are not running for them in their live at this given moment. if football is taken away from the universities then you are taking hope and a chance for a better education away from students and kids trying to better themselves in this harsh world where the only way really to succeed nowadays is to get a college education.

Vivany Oviedo I completely agree with Steven Salzberg, in that football has becoming more and more popular in high schools but most of all in colleges. But, I do not think that it should be taken off completely. I think that sports are good but that they should put limits to how much universities give to their athletics teams. What do we gain from spending so much money on football? Nothing really, then I do not see why universities have go on spending money on their football teams. I just do not like watching our generations praising football rather than educational matters. I know that football might be the U.S. favorite sport but come on how many of the people that play football while in the university actually become pros only a few. Steven Salzberg mention the quote Obama said about celebrating for a science fair winner. I think we should praise more people that win math or science prizes than who wins a trophy at a football game. Our country as a whole has forgotten of how important education is. Education on math and science is significant because it has become so demanding with all the new technology that has emerge. If we do not stop spending our money on football and more on those subjects then I believe that we as a whole can become more of a leader. For example the generations that come are the ones that matter, so if we keep spending and donating money to football teams then how are we as a nation going to keep being the world’s lead in technology. If we keeping doing this then we are showing the next generations to come that it is better to become a pro athlete than a Doctor or an Engineer. Steven Salzberg mentions how much money the Universities spend on paying the football coaches, well instead of paying them they should be giving that money to educational programs. Not only that I have seen how much professional athletes make, I do not think it’s fair that some teacher are paid less than an athlete. Teachers are making a difference by teaching us educational material rather than entertaining us. What have we become, while in other countries they start educating and spending money on education so they can have better future we are paying football coaches $2 million dollars to get fire. This is just insane, and if that was not all they also build larger stadiums with huge screens and a whole lot other expensive features. I really fear what has our world become, but I have faith that little by little we will see that we need to spend more on education than football. I really hope that it starts changing I know that many people like me that love football but there are more important stuff like math and science that we should be caring for. I want our country to become greater than it already is so I people can see that football is not a really big thing.

I entirely agree with you, sir. Also, in support of your statements, history has shown to prove that most great civilizations soon collapsed after they began to create recreational hobbies instead of providing for their nations… Rome, before the Colosseum, was one of the greatest civilizations; as the Colosseum became part of their culture, it wasn’t long until the civilization collapsed. Another example would be the ancient south american civilizations that vanished. In some of their cases, the practice and development of what is now soccer, is what is believed to have been the last renovation to the culture before they vanished. As the united states economy continues to plummet and as jobs and inventions are in great demand, we turn to football? Something is in fact wrong with us… Removal of the sport appears to be the only solution until America can get its priorities straight.

Our world should not only be revolved around science and technologies. The world has a large capacity of humans who are intelligent in unique ways: artistically, athletically, and academically. The purpose of schools is not only to spread just book knowledge, but rather everything else that captivates the minds and interests of students, such as sports. Take the University of Southern California for example. Although well-known for their outstanding football team, the school also offers exemplary degrees in fields such as: photography, engineering, and teaching. Furthermore, most students will shape their future out of the mold that represents what they love most, such as sports. Sports such as football give students, who are inept in academics, an opportunity to make a living out of something they love to do, which is play sports. The most successful football players emerged from these universities and play professionally in the National Football League today. These athletes serve as positive role models for young men everywhere who aspire to become professional football players in the NFL one day.

I believe that this whole football thing is blown out of proportion and should not really be the huge issue in todays world. budget cuts all across america are shortening classes and accepting fewer students into schools. i remember a few years ago when some great colleges only required a 3.5 or higher to get in, now you need 4.0 and other requirements as well. over the years colleges set the bar higher and expect student to jump over it or fail trying. However this is the land of the free, where if you have enough desire to suceed you will come out on top. the “poor education” you say football players receive is not true. Many of them that want to take advantage of the oppurtunity to study and get sucessful careers will. lastly this is a tradition that will likely not go away for a long time. college football is more popular than the science fair which is another reason they do not get more praise. I agree they are both equally praiseworthy but to ban Football is a bit extreme dont you think?

Football, the most popular sport here in the United States, is said to be very money consuming and should be taken out of all universities according to Steven Salzberg. I completely disagree because with college being so expensive and the economy doing extremely bad it’s harder for students to come to college and with football; it’s giving them an opportunity to come to college on a scholarship. People may stereotype football players as being “air heads” but that doesn’t mean they don’t have potential to learn or they might even be the brightest student out there. Universities may be losing money on football but really in the end I think it comes out to be well deserved and the more spirit the school has the more people will come to watch and earn even more money by selling tickets and souvenirs. In my opinion, I think everyone should have a chance to go to college and pursue whatever they want to become and I think football is a great chance for students to do that. However, I do think lowering the costs we put into football would be a good idea. I don’t think we should invest the amount of money we’re investing right now into football, the stadium, and scholarships for football because that money can be used for higher education and important subjects like math and science that other countries are really focusing on. But maybe cutting that amount of money in half would be a better idea to just be focused on football. Coaches, for example, shouldn’t be getting paid as much as the presidents of the school; half of their pay should definitely be going to education and not just paying someone who sits on the side lines. Though still football players should be given an opportunity to triumph as long as they show that they are dedicated to use the scholarship to it’s full potential. Yes, the universities in the United States are widely known all over the world and not for the athleticism but I don’t think it’s necessary to the point where it should be completely taken out. Many bright students would be discouraged and lose faith that they could pay for college when they were relying on a scholarship to go to a university. I see the sport as a motivation, not a distraction, to students to really achieve their goals. To be honest, I think Steven Salzberg is being rather stereotypical and oblivious to the positivity football brings to students and the university as a whole. Universities can still achieve greatness with football being apart of the school; it’s just that the universities need to learn to budget their money better. The greatness comes within the students not the money that buys the items or tools so really; we’re not losing anything we’re just gaining a greater range of students and more possibilities to create. Universities will never completely take out football but they definitely will lower the expenses that go into it so might as well support it and not discourage and stereotype students out there.

Get rid of American Football from all universities? Have you gone completely bonkers? Getting rid of football from universities is as un-American as shooting a bald eagle. Sure universities may be spending more money on their football programs than they should be, but football has been part of university life for over 100 years. There is absolutely no reason to get rid of football now. We should not be blaming football for our lack in educational prominence. Why shouldn’t we blame the educational system itself? Many students dislike the current system in middle school and high school. Rather than applying the knowledge we learn in the class through projects or labs, we take tests on paper. I, as a student, would much rather not take a written test, but an application test. So why take away football, when we can just revamp the educational system. I understand that many college football coaches make more money than the university presidents and there is no need for that. I know there is a need to place more money towards education rather than to sports; mainly football, but to cut football entirely is pure insanity. And while we are cutting football, why don’t we cut baseball, basketball or soccer. Basketball gets just as much national attention and money from the schools. Plus, basketball teams have three times as many games which require them to be away from campus that much more than football athletes. Should we cut basketball too? Basketball has much more of an impact on its players, in terms of time away from academics, than football. When you talk about the Ivy League schools, you mention that they do not award athletic scholarships, but they find ways around that. They do not officially give athletic scholarships but they do give many of their recruited athletes full tuition scholarships under the guise of “academic scholarships” or “financial need”. I have a friend, on our school’s softball team, who is going to Princeton on a full scholarship. While she is an exceptionally bright student, she is receiving the scholarship for athletic purposes. That is how the Ivy League schools get around giving athletic scholarships. Football is not the only thing that is causing the deterioration of the US’s status as a worldly power in academics. Cutting football will not significantly help the United States regain its position as the top world power in math and science. If we want to help the United States regain the top spot in math and science there are far better ways than to cut football. Cutting football will lower school spirit and make students even less interested in school than they already are. We need to improve our educational system, not destroy our athletic programs. I feel that without our sports programs at the universities, students will do worse in school. Again I admit we may be spending too much money on football, which could be better spent on professor salaries or lab equipment. But I think you have gone too far in saying we should cut football out entirely.

I am impressed that you decided to write about this topic, especially when you know that there will be many people who are likely to go against your opinion. However, I have to say that I partly agree with you. Getting football out of universities sounds like going to extremes, and doing this will not always yield the best results. That is why I think that it is better to say that less money should be spent on sports in general and more should go to education. It is of way more importance to spend more money in education, which is more likely produce well-prepared people that know how to cure a patient, teach a student, defend an innocent person, or run a country, rather than being good at catching and throwing a ball that is not even perfectly round. This is a country that should place a greater emphasis on education rather than on sports like football. I do support sports, but when one of these seem to be taking money away that should be used to improve people’s education which is necessary to positively affect every one, not only in this country, but in the entire world, I think it is of high importance to solve whichever problem that that one sport is causing. I am a student, and as one I care about what politicians and university presidents decide to do with the money that can help me reach my dreams.

Thomas Greubel- After reading Mr. Salzberg’s opinion as to why colleges football should be eliminated, I began to question his point, and considered retracting my original thoughts after reading the almost preposterous title. He brings up many good points that I would not have considered an issue prior to reading this article. But after considering his words, I have to come to conclude that removing college football from our universities would cause more harm then good in the long run. Like most student planning on attend a four-year university, college sports are obviously something that I care much about. I enjoy watching college football, and the football team will also be incorporated into my decision when it comes to picking where I will be attending next fall. But to say that a child who wins a science fair should be gratified higher than a child who wins a CIF title is absolutely ridiculous. All children as created differently. Some excel in academics, while other may be gifted in art or sports. But to say that the most ‘important’ feature is academics, makes all other attributes seem worthless and unimportant. Not everyone can get the 4.0 no matter how hard they try. Everyones gifts should be treated equally and no natural born gift is better than the next. As I mentioned earlier, of the schools I am admitted to, the football team will important and will help me decide. With the removal of college football, it damages my choice and eliminates some of the entertainment involved in being a college student. Though college is not about the football team, without it, the school becomes more boring, and would leave much down time throughout the year. And I also understand that with college football players, the idea that their individual education will be harmed with the involvement of them in football, but there is a purpose for the many tutor they get to help them succeed. And yes the tutors are not free, but it is amazing that they can be helped equally, while exercising their natural, physical talents, while also being educated. Which brings up the discussion of scholarships. Scholarships are vital to many that hope to one day attend college with the money to pay for it. In my opinion, an academic scholarship is just as valuable as a sports scholarship, because like I mentioned earlier, everyone should be rewarded for their talents and gifts equally, so if someone is exceptionally good at a sport, he or she should be given the same reward as someone with a great SAT score because everyone is given different abilities and strengths in life. Mr. Salzberg’s words did open my mind to question as to whether eliminating college football was a wise decision, or something preposterous. With much thought and consideration, college football is a staple in how colleges are operated and how they are run. Entertainment, equality, money and scholarships all play a role in determining why football in college is a necessity and great idea in all aspects of how a college is meant to be.

I did enjoy reading your article on Football, but I just have a few comments. I am a high school student and will be heading off to college soon and found this quite interesting. I understand when you say that schools make Football such a priority. I agree with you on how the money that is spent for Football or any sport for that matter is outrageous. I also agree that money that is spent for Football is very high and that some of that money should be used for more academics and science studies. I just disagree with your idea to cut Football. What do you think this will truly do? Yes, it will give us money and possible make us focus more of academics. Yet to me it seems there our many other options, such as cutting down sports money intake. But to cut the sport all together I feel is just simply not the right idea. Football is a wonderful sport it’s a form of entertainment. I think the success of a Football team or any other sport brings pride to the school. You also brought up the fact that in many cases school the football players “most of whom get a poor education and almost none of whom succeed as professional players.” Yes your right but not all these player our like this. Some of course not the majority but some use this game as a way to get into college. They play to get scholarships so that they can continue there education.

I would like to begin by saying how I do not agree with Steven Salzberg at all. I believe some of his points are reasonable, but they are not good enough reasons to take away football completely. Universities need football because some students really do wish to have football as their careers later in life and it is not fair to just take that away from someone just like that. I would also like to bring up how Steven did not even mention any other sports. What about baseball or soccer? I play soccer and I know I would not be happy if my sport were to get cancelled just because of one person’s article that maybe was not the best at sports when he was younger. People who like science can still study science and use it for their career and most of them are not even bothered by the football players. If someone wants to do something with their life, they should do it and something else that another person likes should not get in the way. People like to watch sports on TV and what would happen to the family gatherings that some have? Sports are a way for people to get together and have fun whether it is watching it or playing it. Just like science, it is a hobby. Football is something you sign up for and if you do not like it and want to do something with science, for example, then do not sign up for football. It is something you choose to do and if you do not like it then just do something you like, but you should still understand and put into perspective that others love football and it may even be their dream. So why take that away from someone? I just think that is really sad and wrong. Picture getting something taken away that you love, never being able to do it again or having it taken away without your consent. Most people would be upset about that and if you would not be then that is pretty sad. People attending the school may also be angry at this article. Others enjoy going to games and watching their classmates or friends play in sports. This is something that many look forward to and it would be very disappointing to them if this was taken away from them. Also, football raises money. Students, parents, teachers, and more pay to go to the games and I do not see something like science raising money the way that football does. People do not usually want to go pay to see people doing science things. Many people, if asked, would say yes to paying for a football game rather than watching a science experiment, if this were to ever happen, but it is very unusual for someone to want to pay to watch a science experiment. In conclusion, I believe that football is most definitely needed at a university, along with any other sport that the school offers.

I became a football fanatic when, at the age of six, a fight broke out on my small-town, north Florida, football field. A member of their (Brooker) team fell into our (Starke) side-line bench. Not sure who started it but some punching and kicking brought both teams to our side of the field where all hell broke loose. The “grown” men loyal to each team streamed out onto the field where they each gave as good as they got.

Then I noticed one of the tallest men I had ever seen (perhaps 6′ 4″), grabbing the adult men by the back of their shirt collars and “introducing” them firmly…forehead to forehead. Although my mother hurried me away, I subsequently found out that Coach Hazelwood was hero that tried to establish order. Not sure if Butler and Starke ever continued the rivalry but they didn’t through my time in school (1962).

So, I understand the religion of FOOTBALL!! But I wonder if people, given one of two choices, would be more proud of having Drs. Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin as graduates of their school or having the National Champion. I am a proud Gator, but for people who lived through the scourge of Polio, loosing family and friends to death or crippled bodies, it would be an easy choice.

Your suggestion that football teams become private corporations paying the university a licensing fee makes good sense. I don’t anticipate this happening. The NFL owners know a good thing when they have one.